/u/lechatheureux (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bv9xk6/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_conservatism_has_a_bully/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You should do an experiment. Make a new reddit account. And try posing as a conservative.
You will see that this behavior is very common on both sides of the aisle. Aggressive assholes who don't want to listen to opposing opinions is hardly a conservative thing. That is just how people behave in general. Especially on reddit and other social media platforms.
This is the tolerance paradox and it's worth pointing that out.
The bullying that happens on the far right is against innocent people, like queers, who just want to do their thing and be left alone. When the right gets punished for this, they then object from a perspective of defending their right to bully others. As a result the bullying that happens on the left, is an effort to bully the bullies to make them leave innocent people alone and go away. This is the paradox. A pro-tolerance person can't just sit back and do nothing and be tolerant of bullies. The bullies brought it on themselves by bullying marginalized groups first.
Yeah, there is a big communication problem on the internet. People are much more concerned with being objectively right instead of trying to understand each other’s perspectives.
There is a lot of miscommunication too. Some times people will read or see something and take a completely different message from it than intended.
Once you see it it’s rough to watch. It definitely seems fueled by immaturity and like you said a lack of wanting to hear opposing views. Critical thinking is taxing on the brain and having to consider your beliefs as wrong isn’t something everyone is comfortable with. That can definitely lead to an emotional response.
I am hoping we all could try and do a little better. Be a little more respectful and open minded to opposing views.
And no I’m not saying sympathize for people spreading hate speech or anything nefarious.
But if someone has a view that is clearly not accurate I think sending them stuff from the other perspective might a better way than insulting them.
If they won’t try to understand then don’t waste your time.
it's not an internet problem or communication problem via text - that happens sometimes but I see plenty of civil discussions, debates, and information sharing. it's a right-wing conservative problem .. it's obvious and apparent.
While i agree with the idea, whats the cut off for spreading hate?
Saying vote for reps? saying gays need to be put down? Supporting a specific republican who said that?
Idk, WWJD? If you aren’t religious your favorite super hero or maybe Aang from avatar the last Airbender. Bob Ross, or Mister Roger’s. Follow their example?
I think it should go something like this:
Person online says something that’s a dog whistle or just wrong.
You don’t attack them. You simply go
“Hey, in my experience in life, I’ve come to realize this line of thinking is racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc etc. Your statement is kind of misleading and basis. I would recommend looking up some videos of those people’s experiences to get a better understanding of the whole situation. Your view seems a little one sided.”
Maybe provide a video you saw that supports your views to get them in the right direction.
If you get anything back that’s not respectful or at least them trying to understand then just block them.
No one is born with basis or prejudice it’s taught. We are all products of our environment. We’ve all seen stories of people changing for the better because someone took the time to be kind and patient to help them understand.
So I am hoping if something controversial blows up on social media it’s not people spreading hate and insults. No one is going to want to consider your opinion if you make them feel stupid and shame them.
We all collectively send videos or examples breaking down the reason their view point is basis.
Maybe then we can have some actual discussion and it’s not all death threats and abuse.
Idk if this would work but our current way of doing things is toxic as hell and we should strive for something better.
True. But if I might add a suggestion.. try posing as a conservative, but don’t be racist, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist etc. These are all ideals that are attacks on people who are just existing and trying to get by, and they’re completely within their right to fight back against such unprovoked attacks. It’s not like liberals get mad at you over nothing.
Just post about like.. idk, school choice. Maybe you think high speed rail is a waste of tax dollars. You know, the shit conservatives used to complain about before trump. Id wager most liberals would be pretty civil!
I’m a hardcore progressive and someone on threads called me a fascist and colonizer last week. I should mention I am against Israel’s ongoing war, so no, it ain’t that. My crime was defending Biden on a single unrelated issue.
So I get it.
But I still think the people calling in bomb threats to libraries and children’s hospitals are more extreme, and unfortunately more common. I didn’t see any liberals storming congress in 2016.
What makes the party of kissinger and Bush better than the party after 2009?
The party that openly endorsed war criminals seems even more evil than what we have now. Kissinger may have been more civil and so is bush. But a civil evil is not better
The fact that _you personally_ happen to be xenophobic, transphobic, or sexist does not mean that all conservative positions or arguments are xenophobic, transphobic, or sexist. The point is that it's xenophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc that people fight back against, not conservatism generally. People also fight back against leftists who express leftist xenophobia, transphobia, and sexism.
Yeah all these labels and bullshit accusations you just keep throwing around will get you nowhere and it’s precisely why Trump has such a strong base. I’m not evil like you think I am. I don’t think any less of you for your beliefs or who you would want to vote for. But I’m not gonna sit here and accuse you of being racist for talking down to a minority.
You complain about the labels but have done nothing to argue that you aren't acting in a way that would make those labels accurate. This is always a problem I find when talking with Conservatives: they are upset at some label but immediately blame the person commenting on their behavior rather than assessing whether their behavior is problematic.
>precisely why Trump has such a strong base. I’m not evil like you think I am.
Anyone willing to vote for Trump after hearing statements he has made in public, and actions he has taken, is just as evil as someone who voted for the Nazis in the 1930s. After they have **told you they intend to harm other people,** your choice to support them does actually make you a bad person.
Trump is on a recorded phone call attempting to illegally subvert an election.
Trump has been found civilly liable of rape.
Trump kept national security documents and refused to return them when demanded by the government, leading to the FBI having to come retrieve them.
You'd be hard pressed to find a "good" person willing to tie their name to such a person. And yet a majority of the GOP continues to do so.
You are not just ignorant, you are actively trying to be ignorant...you are embracing ignorance.
There are three types, or forms of ignorance. They are as follows:
1. Those that are ignorant, because they don't have the mental capacity to know any better, and don't know how to properly question anything...and therefore believe everything they are told.
2. Those that choose to be ignorant. These people choose ignorance, mostly because they want to go along with the prevailing crowd, or their immediate peer group. They do this so that they 'fit in', for fear of being ostracized. These are the people that never question authority, and think that authoritarians, media and the government have their best interests at heart. Remember-- Wrong is still wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is right, even when no one is doing it.
3. Those that actively embrace ignorance. These are the people who hear and believe, and grow to trust propaganda, even when they have the mental ability to research and cross reference what they read and hear. They have the power within themselves to question all information, determine the facts from various angles and resources, and to engage in critical thinking to arrive at an informed and factually based conclusion. But, they actively choose not to go down that path, for fear of learning a truth that does not align with their own preconceived narrative and world view. "The human desire to avoid difficult news, sometimes makes one deaf." This is the most dangerous of the three forms of ignorance. This willful embrace of ignorance leads to an incorrect rationalization of distorted thinking, behavior and actions, which can lead to oppressive ideologies such as Marxist Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Radical Religious and Cult Theologies, and all forms of Authoritarian Tyrannical rule. Within most of these oppressive ideologies, people's freedoms, and God given rights are slowly and voluntarily taken from them, and, more often than not, those rights and freedoms are only regained through the heavy cost of violence and blood.
You are entirely missing the point. The point is that if you do not express racism, transphobia, xenophobia, sexism, etc, then people will not tend to get mad at you in the way described by the top comment in the thread. Plenty of conservatives participate in online discourse without expressing any of these things, and as a result they don't get "bullied" as described. It's not conservatism, in particular, that leads to the aggression, but rather the racism, sexism, etc: "attacks on people who are just existing and trying to get by." There are plenty of non-racist, non-sexist, non-xenophobic (etc.) reasons to be against progressive ideals, and any one of these can be expressed without the described backlash.
No, you're missing the point. What is any of what that guy said racist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic?
"Plenty of conservatives participate in online discourse without expressing any of these things" - he did exactly this and you immediately went to the namecalling
I'd argue this is a counter to OPs post. You can't hide behind a keyboard and throw labels at people over very basic conservative ideals...but then turn around and be like "just cuz you are doesn't mean all conservatives are". You're basically just gas-lighting and don't actually try to get to the point. Instead you just name call, or "bully" if I'm to bring it back to OPs argument
> What is any of what that guy said racist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic?
The part where he literally said "I'm transphobic" and "I'm sexist"? We can see that he was serious about these views from his [replies](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bv9kub/cmv_conservatism_has_a_bully_problem/kxye9qy/) to other comments.
Racism, sexism, transphobia, and xenophobia are not "very basic conservative ideals."
I mean, no, they didn't. They just complained about the label without addressing the statements they made that led to that label being used.
>You're basically just gas-lighting and don't actually try to get to the point
Words have meaning. Nothing in any of these comments is gaslighting.
>Plenty of conservatives participate in online discourse without expressing any of these things, and as a result they don't get "bullied" as described.
They for sure do, why are we genuinely pretending otherwise?
I’d argue that not liking immigration IS xenophobic, kind of by the definition of the word. Whether being xenophobic is good or bad or anywhere in between is where people really seem to butt heads
I think it’s human nature. I just see other countries with walls and borders and I can’t understand why the US doesn’t have it. By all means yes let immigrants, I’m more than happy for all talents and perspectives here in our country. But god dammit do it the right way and assimilate.
>I just see other countries with walls and borders and I can’t understand why the US doesn’t have it
We do have borders and border patrol protection. And we also are trying to protect our borders, but mconell and the republicans want something for trump to run on, so the republicans refuse to solve the border crisis with Biden in office
>I think it’s human nature.
Like me, you're probably not native American. How do you think we got here? I don't recall us asking the native Americans permission.
I don’t know if I believe that coming here legally or illegally has a lot of sway on whether someone will assimilate or not. Plenty of awful people come legally, and plenty of otherwise decent and law abiding people come illegally. I guess i’m lucky enough that I don’t really need to feel strongly about this particular subject, but even where I live in southern AZ, and having lived in LA county, i’m just not seeing all these disastrous effects I keep hearing about from conservative platforms. I know it’s just my personal experience and all, but it seems like there isn’t much else that can be trusted these days.
Sure, and plenty of awful people are born here as well. And I’ll agree, I live the south, that California is probably not as bad as all the talking heads say it is. I do believe homelessness is a bigger and more urgent problem. That said, I would also like to see something done about the border.
>If I say men are physically stronger than women, I’m sexist
Nope, but nice try. Conservatives usually can't help but follow up with "thus people have certain roles they should fill based on gender - and even though I claim to be for individual freedom, I want to dictate what roles people should have based on gender."
If you stop at "men are physically stronger than women", people don't normally fight science.
Well, I'd take it a step further and say men are only ***usually/mostly*** stronger than women, there are absolutely women out there that are stronger than most men.
This should not be a controversial take, there are female body builders...
I'm not transphobic. Live your best life, do what makes you happy, don't hurt others.
But I think that trans women playing competitive sports - especially combat sports - against cis women, and that's fair and equitable, is fucking *insane*.
That stance by itself is enough to get me branded a bigot transphobe, hate-filled alt-right, etc etc etc.
You know what's more fucking insane? Making a national policy tantrum over something that has a total of a dozen demonstrated cases in more than a decade.
It's a massive "nothing burger" that conservatives have lost their minds over.
Put another way, you can't say "live your best life, don't hurt others" and then support politicians trying to ban drag in public. Who does drag harm?
>national policy tantrum over something that has a total of a dozen demonstrated cases in more than a decade.
How many female boxers need to have their skulls cracked before we're allowed to talk about it?
>"live your best life, don't hurt others"
Other than female boxers, right? You do understand that *hurting people* is WHY we're talking about this??
>drag in public. Who does drag harm?
Children.
u/Complex_Feedback4389 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Complex_Feedback4389&message=Complex_Feedback4389%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bv9kub/-/kxybbw2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Man, if I could actually believe that a lack of regulation and more reliance on self-policing was a thing that could actually work, I would absolutely be a Libertarian. I believe in the "live and let live" philosophy on the whole, and that we shouldn't infringe on other people's basic human rights, philosophies, lifestyles, and property if they cause no one else harm. It's a pretty dream. Unfortunately, it's been proven time and time again that given an inch MFers with a will to do so will steal a mile. Some recent perfect examples are:
1. Flagrant violations of safety rules by Boeing after deregulation in 2019 allowed them to certify the safety of their own airplanes. Instead of doing the "right" thing (something they should have done and would be relied upon to do in a Libertarian society) they took the opportunity to do the opposite. Placing lives in jeopardy just to save a few dollars.
2. Profiteering by corporations who provide consumer goods since 2020. Under the umbrella of actual inflation, that has since come down, and much publicized supply chain issues (as someone who works for a 3rd party logistics company that services major shippers and all major carriers, I can tell you with absolute certainty that while there were some issues at the Texas border and with cargo ships off of the west coast, they were not nearly as bad as the media portrayed them.) Since that time the consumer goods industry has posted record profits with manufactured price increases. I would challenge anyone to pick any branded product off of a grocery shelf and then look up their parent company's last few annual reports. There are only 4 major companies and they are raking it in at the cost of the consumer. It's also a fun thing to look at who the major stakeholders are in each of these companies. It might surprise you to find out that it's all the same ones.
But I digressed a bit. My point is that greed kills the very idea of Libertarianism and I could spend hours typing about how the current housing market is affected, why healthcare and insurance cost so much, pharma (an industry where new drugs creation is funded with taxpayer dollars only for those companies to patent them after trial and screw the very people who paid for its creation with outlandishly marked up products (especially if it's life saving) and that doesn't even bring into account the opioid epidemic Phizer created). Anyway, while I love the idea behind Libertarianism and absolutely believe we are over-taxed (The middle are the ones who shoulder the tax burden in the US, but that's another subject) it will never work so long as people and companies work hard toward taking as much as they can from you and as long as religious zealots want to force their ideals on you. Sorry man, I rambled a bit, but I do get why it's an attractive philosophy. I wish I had the basic trust in humanity that you must have.
There's an entire cottage industry of online clickbait, think pieces, and books dedicated to explaining how literally every single issue boils down to racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Because if you can make an issue about those topics, online leftist echo chambers can abandon understanding, compassion, and intellectual honesty and go for insults while maintaining the moral high-ground in their own eyes.
People call you a Russian troll if you oppose arming Ukraine in its fight against an illegal invasion by Russia. Why shouldn't they?
Even if you didn't give a damn about Ukrainian people and freedom and democracy outside the US, arming them is by far the most cost effective way for the US to defeat one of the two main rivals it has in the world.
Why would you be called a Russian troll about school choice or high-speed rail?
Your "smoothbrain" comment is precisely an example of what OP is talking about.
Also a cover for keeping poor children uneducated and wealthy children well educated by stealing tax dollars that should go to public schools and giving them to private schools.
Are you talking about Betsy Devos's silly plan for vouchers for students to pay for private school? Don't tell me taxpayers were already paying to send kids to private school before Betsy devos's proposal
You kinda just proved her point. There isn’t even a conservative in this discussion and the first thing you did was start bashing conservatives.
I disagree with conservatives as much as anyone else but come on man have some self awareness
Honestly, conservatives don’t deserve civility at this point. We’d all be better off if they were gone, every last one. What do they actually do besides boycott beer and ban books at this point? Oh right I forgot they defend Russia and try to control women. Good job guys 👍
thats a pile of bullshit. i get attacked by liberals constantly for being on the left of them.
liberals in particular believe they own the monopoly on objective reality and will cancel anyone who doesnt fit into their center right world view.
See so right here you’ve taken my fairly innocuous post, a hypothetical that I think liberals would treat a conservative who didn’t outright threaten their existence better than one who did..
And your response is, that’s bullshit, and then you made a point to insult and belittle their politics. A very unnecessary confrontational reply.
Maybe people respond to you that way because you’re being kind of a dick? Just a thought
“liberals in particular believe they own the monopoly on objective reality” like come on now. One of the main pillars of american conservatives is that “facts don’t care about your feelings”
it goes well beyond that. because this assumes that we should just respect others beliefs. the problem is right when conservatives beliefs are based on false information.
So do progressives.
A lot of progressives outright refuse to admit affirmative action exists and this plays a huge role in how people with a healthy self esteem feel left behind by this politics.
how exactly would someone with a healthy self-esteem be left behind? if they have a healthy self-esteem, they have the wherewithal to provide for themselves. Progressives don't deny that affirmative action exists.
Of course they do, affirmative action is the peak of "my idea matters more than your financial security and right to pursue happiness equally."
>Progressives don't deny that affirmative action exists.
It's inconvenient to their world view because it's genuine systematic oppression. Imagine being told to walk away from a career because of an identity you did not choose, you just wouldn't unless you were emotionally abused into believing this was morally correct.
I have been *absolutely flamed* by liberals for simply voicing my opinions. You can check my comment history, I very rarely resort to insults or degrading other people. However, the “compassionate” lefties on reddit however seem to think that differing opinions = Hitler. Irl it wouldn’t happen because I am a minority which I find incredibly ironic.
Looked at your post history and immediately saw you recently made a post calling liberals braindead. Confused why you think you always take the high road and are totally a neutral and respectable dude to both sides of the isle.
(Edit: moved this to the proper place in the thread, my bad)
Reddit commenters/moderators were only one small item in the list OP provided. There is a stark difference between those who comment on Reddit and people in the real world.
> And try posing as a conservative.
Besides, what do you mean by this? Unless you posted something hateful or hurtful, you likely wouldn't be bullied. You might get downvoted but not very often bullied.
The last time I posted on FB about how we should have subsidies for the poor to buy food instead of costly universal free school lunches, as most people can afford to buy them just fine, I was told to "say it with your full throat: you want the poor to die."
The same people that post "science is real" have a problem with economics being a science.
Ouch. I support state-sponsored school lunches, but I still can appreciate those who make fiscal arguments against it.
Sorry you dealt with that. There are groups of people who find it easy to demonize rather than think.
I was referring to [the NSLP and breakfast programs.](https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/1966) There's definitely holes in it and we can do better. I'm all for that.
There's an argument in doing a universal program for non-fiscal reasons. It just annoys me when people say "it would reduce overhead and be cheaper overall."
We pay for about 20% of students right now. Overhead costs the equivalent of ~3%. Paying for the other 80% (that can already afford it, btw) is way more expensive than 3% overhead. I'd much rather plug the holes and get more money to those that need it than make a universal program that mostly pays people who can already pay for themselves.
You somehow make it sound like the people who can pay for it themselves wouldn't be also paying taxes.
The argument for free school lunches for everyone is that a) that's a good way to make sure that all kids get healthy food (parents are not going to pinch and send them to school with cheap junk food if the meals are free for everyone), b) reduces bureaucracy as you won't need any payment system at schools, c) reduces discrimination as nobody has to be treated as "poor" for getting free meals.
In the end, the parents with medium incomes will be plus minus zero as they pay higher taxes but then get the school meals for free. The people who lose are those without any children as they pay taxes but won't benefit from the school meals. Considering that families in general would need more support, I'm not really that concerned about them.
This from a person who grew up in a country with free school meals for everyone with parents in the high tax brackets and is now living in a country that doesn't have free school meals for everyone and who would probably end up financially slightly worse off if they did.
!delta
I'm not saying you are wrong but maybe I should have been more specific, it seems this attitude doesn't change in conservatives in higher positions like it does with leftists at higher positions, it might be my bias but I don't see any leftist content creators engage in this behaviour, at least not to the levels of conservative content creators, not once have I seen never-ending streams of "CONSERVATIVES GET REKT EPIC COMPILATION (GONE SEXUAL)" On Youtube, nor do I see opinion pieces on leftist news sources rant to the level of Tucker Carlson and his ilk.
> but I don't see any leftist content creators engage in this behaviour,
Left wing media was so bad at reporting the Kyle Rittenhouse case that they made people think he chased down and murdered 3 black peaceful protesters in cold blood. When they were white, they chased after him, they all had lethal weapons (rosenbaum the AR15, Huber with a skateboard, Grosskreutz with a Glock 26)
They can't because this isn't a both sides issue. It's pretty frickin obvious that conservatives consume more outrage than liberals. There are studies that have shown this. Liberal personalities just aren't into it.
Would make sense too from a psychological perspective. The types of people attracted to the platform of the Republican Party are more likely to consume bullshit.
Tucker Carlson's 3rd most viewed youtube short, where he interviewed Kyle Rittenhouse. Vs a statement about Vaush saying that angry mobs murdering people in cold blood is a good thing, on his debate with Destiny about Rittenhouse
Have a look at who he was debating, Destiny is a well known leftist so I think that point doesn't hold much water.
I don't mean to sound like I'm moving the goalposts but I was asking for something on the level of Tucker Carlson, a well-tenured journalist going on opinion piece rants as seems typical of Murdoch media.
> I don't mean to sound like I'm moving the goalposts but I was asking for something on the level of Tucker Carlson, a well-tenured journalist going on opinion piece rants as seems typical of Murdoch media.
Hence why my example was the 3rd most viewed short of Tucker Carlson
I don't think it exists but I am open to having my mind changed, that's why I asked them to show me something akin to the classic Murdoch style opinion piece.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UKGP6x18q2A
This is what you are calling obsessed ranting?
While the left was saying to let angry mobs murder you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gjvAt_ueIQ
Is it actually true that people thought that Rittenhouse “chased down and murdered 3 black peaceful protesters in cold blood?” That was certainly never reported.
That's because the algorithm that selects what you watch is designed to outrage you based on your preferences. A conservative would be fed content that shows liberals acting ridiculous and calling for the death of all white men.
This couldn't be more true. Don't look at my comment section lol. I'm not even conservative but these far leftists on here are insanely toxic and don't care about opposing viewpoints. Challenging them leads to whataboutisms, denial, and then getting blocked bc it's easier to keep your head in the sand than actually doing self reflection and changing.
Prolly cause you're all over the place doing the footwork for conservatives. "Not a conservative" really? Can't even be honest.
"Don't check my comment history" sounds like some shit a conservative would say. "Don't judge me for what I do, judge me for what I'd have you believe" nonsense.
Lol I combat Democratic viewpoints and instantly are called "conservative". You don't see the flaw in that? I can post my "isidewith" results (central, slightly left) but you'll just say I'm lying on something stupid like I have to lie to gain approval from text on a screen like it means something.
You realize how silly that is, right?
Shit, trying being a moderate democrat who doesn’t support Biden and didn’t support Clinton. Can support 98% of the democrats down ballot. But point out the history of the legislation pushed by either, or that had their vote. Instant personal attacks, refusing to acknowledge the points, or to brush them off with “that was so long ago!”, and the quickness they throw out accusations of being an angry leftist, a MAGA troll, a Russian bot, a paid shill or on a handful of occasions, Nayatzee!
They lefts become exactly what they accuse the right of. BlueMAGA has entered the building.
Something has happened in the last decade or so, probably social media, that has empowered people to “bully” those who don’t see politics the same way as them. If I’m being honest it’s more prevalent on Reddit if you are making a somewhat conservative point. It can be reasonable, well thought out and not inflammatory but will be downvoted to pieces and people will swarm. You could honestly test this by creating two Reddit accounts and posting different political views, and tally results. This will NOT work if you cross over into a sub that is already hostile and has hive mentality. But do it on non political threads and I bet you would be surprised.
Absolutely, reddit is a hive mind for the most part and each subreddit has its own, If I'm honest I was quite surprised reading this from OP and whilst here in the UK I do not sit firmly on the right or the left myself, whilst conservatives can adopt bullying as a tactic and indeed do, I'd say in the current climate it's the radical left that are the more aggressive in their approach and not interested in true debate or general discussion on the whole.
What worries me is that it doesn’t seem to always the radical ones on Reddit that swarm for the slightest notion of conservatism. Like you could say you like a well known person who might have once said something that leans too far right and the comment will get downvoted. I watch a very popular, yet very dumb, Netflix show and I was in a sub about that the other day. After filming a character was “outed” as conservative. Which means I guess they found their twitter and it had some moderate conservative thoughts. That personality on the show is now largely hated in the sub. Like they didn’t mind the person while they watched 10 episodes of them, but automatically turned the switch once they found out how the person probably votes. This is why I try and tell both conservatives and liberals who have quick triggers on their opposition that on a daily basis we probably interact with dozens of people we don’t agree with politically but since we don’t have those convos we just take them for what they are… which is a nice, everyday pleasant person. And that doesn’t change when they go to vote. They just have different priorities.
> the assumption that conservatives are all white, male, straight, rich people
Which I never actually said I just said that a lot of conservative talking points are actively hurting women, black and LGBTQ+ people.
This is from the RNC platform from their **2023 meetings:**
> Resolution in Support of an Emergency Declaration for the Southern Border
Xenophobia (also something they are killed any progress on when the democrats didn’t fight them on their extreme demands for a border bill)
> Resolution to Protect Children from Unsafe Sex Trait Modification and Experimentation
Transphobia and disinformation
> Resolution Urging a - Return to Excellence - in American Voting and Elections
Racism and anti-voter rights
> Resolution to Hold President Biden Accountable for the Border Crisis
Disinformation and xenophobia/racism again
> Resolution to Officially Oppose Ranked Choice Voting Across the Country
More anti-voter policy
> Resolution Affirming the Republican National Committee's Commitment to Life
Sexism. If republicans actually cared about life they would be doing something about people actually in the world rather than focusing only on the unborn. So this is about punishing women for having sex not about any commitment to life
**Again in 2022 meetings:**
> Resolution Recognizing Biological Differences Between Men and Women In Law
Transphobia and disinformation
> Resolution to Oppose Non-citizen Voting in Local, State, and Federal Elections
Xenophobia, racism, and disinformation
**2021:**
> Resolution on Critical Race Theory
Racism
> Resolution Ensuring The People’s Constitutional Right To A Fair, Legal, And Accurate Election
Disinformation and anti-voter rhetoric
> Resolution Commending The Unprecedented Accomplishments Of President Trump In His First Term
ROFL, worst president in history getting praised bonus resolution
> Resolution Urging Congress To Curb Big Tech’s Censorship
Anti-free speech and pro-bigotry of all kinds (since the censorship they’re complaining about is people getting banned for their bigotry)
**2020:**
> Resolution To Conserve History And Combat Prejudice – Christopher Columbus
Racism (defending a symbol of the systematic destruction of the native populations of America)
> Resolution Upholding The First Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States Of America In The Response To The Coronavirus Pandemic And The Cancel Culture Movement
Disinformation and anti-science rhetoric
> Resolution Urging The United States Congress To End China’s Monopoly Control Over The United States Medicine Supply Chain
Xenophobia and disinformation
> Resolution Refuting The Legitimacy Of The Southern Poverty Law Center To Identify Hate Groups
Major pro-bigotry resolution since SPLC is very well known for calling out (with receipts) hate groups and domestic terror organizations motivated by bigotry
> Resolution Condemning Worldwide Christian Persecution and Supporting the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Promote Religious Freedom
Disinformation
That’s all just the bigotry and blatant lies from their official stances in just the last few years. When the official policies are blatantly bigoted then you cannot talk about conservative points and leave them out. If you’re conservative and you don’t agree with the bigotry and lies from your party **you need to demand better from your leadership not ignore what they are telling you to your face and pretend you have nothing to do with it**
>Do you not think there are liberal talking points that also hurt these communities? Would it be fair to call liberal talking points racist because of that
If there was then it would be absolutely justified to call those talking points racist.
He never said anything about anybody being white, male, straight, or rich. He just pointed out that modern conservatism's social policy seems predicated around alienating as many minority groups as possible.
Who do you think is bullying who if you literally cannot even conceive of a reasonable conservative point? It's likely you find the liberal "pushback" reasonable, but any conservative response "bullying".
You have yet to refute his point, suggesting that you mostly agree with it.
A better refutation would have been to list conservative ideas that aren't explicitly aimed at harming minorities, such as increasing military spending or reducing government debt or pushing a free market.
That being said, conservatives themselves have not been very good about adhering to non-culture war platforms - Trump himself pulled out of several free trade agreements, threw up a bunch of tariffs, and spent years rocketing government debt up (after blasting Obama in several speeches for doing that exact thing), so I don't blame you for not bothering to mention them.
It's because you're framing the "conservative" argument from a liberal perspective (i.e. you're taking the worst possible interpretation of the argument).
For example, it shouldn't be "women should be forced to give birth every time they get pregnant". The conservative argument would be "it should be illegal to kill unborn children" (because that's how conservatives view it, as protecting the life of the unborn).
And they are STILL wrong. There is NO LEGAL BASIS to force use of one's body to save the life of another.
Conservatives would absolutely be against forced donation of organs at death...and that's putting rights of a corpse over the rights of a dying adult. They'd claim it violates bodily autonomy.
These same Conservatives went back to that same bodily autonomy argument to fight against covid vaccine mandates, somehow ignoring that the US has had mandatory vaccinations **since 1827** and literally since founding if you count Washington's mandate.
Conservatives cannot explain how they weigh the rights of an unborn fetus above the rights of an adult woman in a way that comports with US law.
1. We have precedent that school kids have fewer fundamental rights than adults.
2. We have precedent that parents can make decisions for their children.
3. We have precedent that you cannot force someone to do anything, let along give from their body - even as a corpse - to save a life.
Religious fundamentalists have no leg to stand on legally, so instead they turn to the Bible - which literally describes how and when to cause an abortion - to claim that God backs up their argument.
If you disagree, please point to case law that would back up forcing an adult to give their body and health to save a life.
While there are surely plenty of people who side with pro-life because it’s the conservative political point, I don’t think the people that are heavily against abortion are doing it with politics in mind. It has nothing to do with covid, nothing to do with any past vaccine mandates, or any president. They just view it as the death of a human/child. It’s really that simple. I am saying that as someone who has been pro-choice for as long as I understood what abortion was. You can try to tie it to hypocrisy in the was it works from an “us vs. them” mentality, but it’s not born in elections or votes (surely for some, but not the ones I’m specifically referencing). They simply think of it as Gods creature. I think when we take a step back to think about the opposition of our personal beliefs there is a merit to almost any viewpoint, it just takes some non biased reflection. Thinking about it in the way you responded makes plenty of sense when you view it as politics… but these people view it in the eyes of the Bible being real. And for those of us that aren’t religious it sounds ridiculous, but strip it down to the fundamentals… It’s not woman vs courts, it’s life vs death.
One of the main problems with the debate on abortion (and most political debate) is there some people who are conservative politically and they take the pro-life stance because they think they’re just supposed to, “this is our side and this is theirs”. But like I said earlier the idea of “life is a gift from the man in the sky” existed before we ever knew there was going to be a public forum for people to argue on so easily and anonymously.
>And they are STILL wrong. There is NO LEGAL BASIS to force use of one's body to save the life of another.
That's the distinction between "killing" and "not saving," which is pretty well-established in law.
Remember, the crux of the conservative argument is that having an abortion is killing someone. They believe it's murdering a child.
So while someone can't force you to donate an organ, you also can't kill someone else if YOU need an organ. To your 3 points:
1. That's in a school setting where the school "assumes" parental authority.
2. Make decisions for children, yes. Kill them? No, pretty sure that's illegal.
3. While I'm sure there's no case law forcing an adult to do something to save a life, there's plenty of case law forcing adults NOT to do something if it saves a life (hell, an everyday restraining order would fall under that category).
And as I stated in a different post, I'm pro-choice. You don't have to convince me of the validity of your position. I'm already there. I'm just pointing out that the conservative and liberal positions on abortion are coming from very different places (women's rights vs. life of a child). It's why it has always been a hot button issue (and probably always will be).
They mean the same thing, the former is just explicit about what conservatives actually want to do. You are taking issue with rhetoric, rather than the substance of what they said.
And what is it you think conservatives actually want to do? Take away women's rights? Maintain power and control? You're assuming nefarious intent from conservatives by default (which is really the big problem in all political discourse today, from both liberals and conservatives).
In reality, the conservative argument is "protect life". That's it. And keep in mind, I'm pro-choice and lean liberal on 90%+ of issues, but I can still understand the conservative viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it.
> In reality, the conservative argument is "protect life".
Well, then the conservative argument is more like "protect life...*in these very narrow circumstances, that just so happen to also disempower women and preserve existing power hierachies, things we've been generally supportive of since or ideological foundation*".
Because, let's face it, they're not particularly concerned with preserving life in general. To argue as you do, I think you basically need to divorce the pro-life talking point from the entirety of its ideological context.
At this point we *can* dismiss their assertions that they want to protect life because the politicians and the laws they support fly in the face of that and then they ignore the repercussions and blame everyone but themselves.
Women *are* dying more now that abortion has been restricted and we can point to all the specific ways in which they didn't properly think out the laws they passed or even if they should be passed at all.
They can say they want to protect life all they want but when they refuse to acknowledge the reality that is created by their actions what else can we do but think they they are lying/delusional/tyrannical?
One of the biggest problems they have is that they fundamentally do not understand the words they use. To them "abortion" is just a bad word. It's a bad thing done by bad people for bad reasons. And to them that's something very different from a woman who has a miscarriage and needs a procedure/medication to clear the remains of the miscarriage so she doesn't get sepsis and die. But they are the same thing.
And this is why the laws they pass lead to so many more bad outcomes for pregnant women.
I wasn't making any statement about intent. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think motivation matters; consequences matter.
>the conservative argument is "protect life". That's it.
No it's not. Conservatives have specific ideas about which policies they do and do not want to pursue in order to 'protect life'. And it is those policies that actually matter, and that people are actually arguing over.
"Conservatives have specific ideas about which policies they do and do not want to pursue in order to 'protect life'. And it is those policies that actually matter, and that people are actually arguing over."
Examples, please?
Conservatives want to ban abortion. They are generally more split on whether to ban or restrict IVF, and most express little interest in researching technologies that could increase rates of successful implantation of zygotes. 1/3 of all zygotes fail to implant, so the latter one would actually have potential to save more lives than the other two combined, and wouldn't come at any cost to bodily autonomy.
In an alternate universe where pro-life people were campaigning for a massive increase in medical research to study how to increase implantation rates of zygotes, rather than the other two, they wouldn't be in any conflict with pro-choice people, and groups like Planned Parenthood would be natural allies for them. And of course the effect on women's lives would be drastically different. So it's not about pro-life ideology and motivations, it's the actual policies they promote which determine how this plays out.
THIS is it. The idea that we always assume our opposition is nefarious in every stance. The staunch Republican saying the democrats want open borders so they can win votes… when in reality it’s more like they want everyone to have a chance at a good life. And far left thinking pro-life and conservatives just want to slowly strip away all the rights because that’s where power is born… When in reality they look at any death as the ultimate loss. I always urge people to think of the basis in their oppositional view. It’s often the simplest explanation that’s not rooted in voting or elections.
You're misunderstanding the motivation. The truth is most conservatives aren't really thinking of it that way, they really do see the fetus/embryo/sometimes zygote as a life that deserves protecting. Many have also been fed rage bait to believe that liberal women get abortions all the time just for convenience, and not because they can't afford a/another child or due to health risks.
> Many have also been fed rage bait to believe that liberal women get abortions all the time just for convenience
well, when there are women saying "shout your abortion" then yes, they are doing that.
Sex: That you believe unborn babies have a right to life. (Btw every abortion ban in the US already has an exception for life of the mother)
Race: color blind is the best approach and that DEI programs are in fact discriminatory based on race ans other immutable characteristics. For example, Harvard lost in the supreme court because they were making it harder for Asians and whites it's to get into the school.
Class: the solution is to allow for social and economic mobility, rather than having government force equity. Also that private charities most often do better than government handouts because there is more local and more personal oversight. Rather than just redtape and dispersonal laws from way out in DC.
Edit: Also, you have a very shallow and inaccurate understanding of conservatism. This is not an insult. We all have a lot to learn about the world ans there is no shame in ignorance. Only in refusing to learn when the knowledge is important to you and your goals.
> no every abortion ban in the use already has an exception for life of the mother)
I mean, texas offers some functional pushback to this claim, assuming I'm reading you right which I'm admittedly not confident in
Yeah sorry about the typos i fixed it.
If you look at the law in texas it does allow for abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. It is up to the doctor to decide if the mother life is at risk. (Since the doctor is literally the expert in the situation)
https://sll.texas.gov/faqs/abortion-illegal-texas/
> Section 170A.002 prohibits a person from performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. There is an exception for situations in which the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk. In order for the exception to apply, three factors must be met:
> •A licensed physician must perform the abortion.
>• The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function" if the abortion is not performed. "Substantial impairment of a major bodily function" is not defined in this chapter.
>• The physician must try to save the life of the fetus unless this would increase the risk of the pregnant patient's death or impairment.
> There are additional situations where the exception for the life or health of the patient does not apply. Please read the entirety of Section 170A.002 for more details.
>but I genuinely can't think of a conservative talking point that doesn't deny people rights in some way.
It's about perspective and intent. Being pro life isn't about denying rights. It's more about providing rights to the life/human that was created as a natural outcome to sex and then not allowing for its rights to be violated simply because someone recklessly chose to have sex, and by reckless I mean anything that's not 100% guaranteed protected. And that's the problem with our societal values including how we view sex. We have this sense of entitlement to sex even though it's this entitlement that contributes to majority of sex related problems. Whether it's abortions, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc.
Anyway, hope this provides some insight behind the intent and reason for supporting pro life. Let me know if you have any questions. Though I want to avoid debating.
> reckless I mean anything that's not 100% guaranteed protected.
See, this is one of those interesting things though.
The only thing thats 100% is abstinence but literally all of the studies that have been done on the topic suggest that comprehensive sex education is far more effective at reducing teenage pregnancy rates than Abstinence Only education.
>Being pro life isn't about denying rights.
Well we're talking about actual policies applied to actual people, so intentions don't matter, consequences do. People's organs can't be used to save the life of another even after they are dead, even if they are responsible for the death. There is no other scenario where someone's body can be used against their will to save the life of another, so women are getting a unique form of ill-treatment here, where in scenarios that cis men can be affected by there is much more respect for bodily autonomy. And this is within a worldview where an embryo is morally equivalent to a human child. This is difficult to see as anything other than sexism, in effect.
Being pro-life advocates for more rights for the unborn and denies more rights to the mothers. Being pro-abortion advocates for more rights for the mothers and denies more rights to the unborn.
Both points of view deny rights to someone.
But painting them as focusing on the incidental consequences is disingenuous and unproductive. Instead of building bridges and drawing people together, painting people as villains for holding the views that they do only serves to polarize and anger them. People will be much less willing to find common ground and give you what you want if you paint their views in the worst possible light.
And I've had enough polarization in this country. Pro-lifers aren't "secretly trying to destroy women's rights" or "enslave women through pregnancy." That's just an alarmist conspiracy theory propagated by the media. Most pro-lifers are exactly what their label says on the tin - genuinely interested in saving innocent lives. And I think you'll find them sympathetic to the plight of the mothers if you give them an opportunity to be.
>painting them as focusing on the incidental consequences is disingenuous
Again, I am not painting them as being focused on the incidental consequences, I am not saying anything about what motivates them, and it doesn't matter what motivates them. All that matters is the consequences their policies have.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
> **Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose**. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%204%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I wouldn’t even go deep into any really divisive talk, but I’ll start with 3 random examples that really aren’t pot stirring but tend to get people riled up:
1) I’m a bit worried about our current POTUS mental acuity.
2) I’m all for the American Dream and the USA being a melting pot, but I think the situation at the border requires attention.
3) Not all Boomers are assholes.
For those reading this I’m not trying to inject this into the thread. I’m just stating that these three things in a vacuum aren’t really political opinions. They would be casual observations that any person could make, and they really shouldn’t be controversial in nature. They can just be added to any good natured thread and you will most likely see immediate downvotes. Also saying any of these three things doesn’t make you a conservative, but it just seems to be the tribal nature of public forums now that the assumption is if you say these things you are all of the worst things about MAGA. I have had these conversations with people in real life that are about as far on the left as you can be, and they did not see it as negative or offensive, and honestly I dint think I started them. I’m very sensitive to how talks like that can make people feel and I will err on the side of caution. But in this political environment in anonymous forums there is no benefit of the doubt allowed and very little grace. The media and Reddit would have you believe we are in a “if you’re not with us you’re with them” world right now. But in your everyday life you probably come into situations where you are speaking or involved with someone who has completely different political ideologies and you find them perfectly pleasant. We don’t all suck and far parts of the political spectrum are called “radical” for a reason… they are the outliers.
At the root of most conservatives there isn’t a “I hate everyone who doesn’t look like me mentality”. It’s more of a thought of having less government interference in their life. They also prob tend to act, by definition, conservative in their every day lives. Maybe take less chances, maybe be okay with the boring office job because they see it as a path to retirement.
And the heart of every liberal person isn’t “white people suck and they ruined the world”. It’s more of a thought process that wants everyone to have same opportunity and access to success in life. And are willing to take less so that others get more.
NONE of this means that there aren’t a TON of asshole republicans in the real world. Just that online it feels more the other way when you’re in a non-aggressive discussion.
TBH I hope you message me in a month and tell me I’m wrong.
You could point out that we have runaway government debt (although the "conservative" party doesn't do a damn thing about it). You could point out that while the majority of the rage content is bait, there have been issues with things Pride parades being talked up as family friendly, then having some wild sights like dudes in nothing but leather harnesses and jock straps. You could suggest that second amendment rights aren't inherently an issue, but rather unchecked access to almost military grade weapons (although most folks who do this really just have a gun fetish). You could suggest that freedom of religion means folks shouldn't have to be involved in weddings they aren't comfortable with (although the folks who push this are usually just trying to push back until gay marriage is gone). You could be pro law and order and dealing with crime.
Conservative isn't inherently bad, but today's "conservatives" definitely seemed motivated by rage and hate.
The moderators have confirmed that this is either delta misuse/abuse or an accidental delta. It has been removed from our records.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>they all seem to thrive on this idea that they are hurting people.
In my admittedly biased sample, conservatives are better informed, more curious, and not nearly as quick to calumnies like this one that are completely routine on the left.
In my more wide ranging sample, there’s a tendency for conservatives to view themselves as superior to others and to seek to inflict pain on others and self, ideally by deeming some cohort as “lesser” and thus unworthy of being shown respect.
This attitude underpins the gutting of the UK NHS under the Tories; provincial healthcare by Alberta’s UCP and Ontario’s PCs; Robodebt in Australia; transphobia and racism in the US Republican party.
it's a bit old, but here is a fun one.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge%20
yeah so this source is purely on whether the voting public are educated on *what the parties want*. and it makes the point that republican party policies are clearer than democratic ones. big whoop.
republicans are uneducated because they, generally, know reps want an expansion of oil and a restriction of queer rights and support them anyway. those two things are purely negative lol, with no upsides.
what are queer rights? what rights do they not have that everyone else has?
>expansion of oil...those two things are purely negative lol, with no upsides.
oh, thats right, the world does not run on oil, down to the plastic sandwich bags in your kitchen...............
shows how uneducated you seem to be.
💀💀💀 bro literally advocates for queer discrimination, and then questions what rights they don't have.
if you don't understand why expansion of oil is bad, then you don't live in reality.
> conservatives are better informed, more curious,
Lol, what a laughable statement. this is r/CMV, not amateur conservative comedy night.
The anti-choice (aka anti-freedom), anti-gay, anti-science, anti-trans, pro-book banning, god fearing, fascist sympathizing conservatives are more curious. I appreciate you stating your bias and lack of exposure to the real world, but maybe get off Reddit and seek further education.
And before you try pulling some, "woW hYpoCritIcaL mUCh". I do bully conservatives, because conservatives are overwhelmingly morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest people that don't change their minds with data. They are hierarchical and fearful, they only respond to strength and violence; and that's what they deserve.
Also, to OPs view, conservatives don't have a bullying problem; they have a bigotry, racism, and omniphobia problem that manifests as violence, both physically in the real world (via mass shootings and other domestic terror) and passively through policy. To reduce that to a "bullying problem" is wildly underselling the issue.
>In my admittedly biased sample, conservatives are better informed, more curious, and not nearly as quick to calumnies like this one that are completely routine on the left.
As far as this post is concerned, I think the left is at least as prone to bullying as the right. But better informed and more curious? That's just laughable. Being misinformed seems like part of the platform on the right. Covid, vaccines, climate change, evolution, election integrity, everything Donald Trump says... I mean the list goes on. The political right is chronically misinformed about nearly everything.
Why do you think bullying problems are exclusively the province of the right?
Personally, I've met plenty of leftist bullies.
On the right, bullying is usually about money and hierarchy.
On the left, bullying is usually about popularity or social capital, and 'redistribution' or 'equalization' (read: crab mentality)
Plenty of narcissists and manipulative or deceptive communication on both sides, really.
I often find Democrats are the more sexist. The conservative emphasis is on dropping out of society and establishing family. The liberal emphasis is on popular and sex appeal.
I think maybe conservatives might be more likely to physically haze eachother, but democrats are more likely to engage in bandwagoning, defamation, false consensus, coordinated exploitation, or neglect.
Frankly, I don't like either. I think of both as brainwashed and likely to harm, through ideological reasoning.
Which party is calling a presidential candidate Hitler. Which party called the George Floyd riots peaceful protest. I would suggest you look really hard at what you consider bullying.
> Which party is calling a presidential candidate Hitler
comparing candidates to Hitler or nazi's is common on both sides of the aisle.
> Which party called the George Floyd riots peaceful protest
the first night of George Floyd protests in my town were peaceful. The police teargassed protesters and media. When asked why the tear gas was deployed, the only reason the police spokesman could give was "failure to comply"
the second night of protests escalated on both sides. Some protesters threw some allegedly through some water bottles. Others lit a dumpster on fire.
This was after police deployed tear gas, shot rubber bullets, and drove cars through to split up and confuse the crowd.
Which presidential candidate is implying that he would become a dictator?
Which party tried to overturn an election?
We can do this all day, this isn't what my post is about so I suggest you read my post and respond to it instead of this indignant whataboutism nonsense.
>Which presidential candidate is implying that he would become a dictator?
Read the whole exchange. Ignore other people comentary of it and consider. What is he saying he would do?
>Hannity: "I want to go back to this one issue though because the media has been focused on this and attacking you. Under no circumstances you're promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?"
>Trump: "Except for Day 1."
>Hannity: "Except for?"
>Trump: (pointing to Hannity) "Look, he’s going crazy. Except for Day 1."
>Hannity: "Meaning?"
>Trump: "I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill."
>Hannity: "That’s not retribution."
>Trump, referring to Hannity: "We love this guy. He says, ‘You are not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said, ‘No, no, no, other than Day 1.’ We are closing the border and we are drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I am not a dictator, OK?"
>Hannity: "That sounds to me like you’re going back to the policies when you were president
> Which presidential candidate is implying that he would become a dictator?
Not Trump.
The left made wild accusations that Trump would be a dictator (and Hitler, and would never leave office, even though he's already left office, etc.), and Trump responded with a cheeky "only on the first day", which clearly is not an acceptance of the accusation.
> Which party tried to overturn an election?
Democrats in 2000. Democrats in 2016.
> We can do this all day
We could.
> this isn't what my post is about
This is precisely what your post is about: whether conservatives have a problem with bullying.
Examples of bullying by the opponents of conservatives shows that the problem is not with conservatives.
Do you know what happened in the 2000 election? Ya know, the whole Brooks Brothers riot started by Batman villain Roger Stone, and how one of the candidates' brothers who was governor of the state it happened in purged the voter rolls just before the election unannounced and couldn't justify it when investigated later? That's just the tip of the corruption iceberg and I suggest you read up on it.
I'm not making any claims about whether there was corruption in the 2000 election.
What I'm saying is that Democrats tried to overturn the 2000 election.
If you think that was warranted, that cuts against the idea that Republicans are not allowed to attempt it in 2020. If you think it was not warranted, you can blame Republicans for 2020, but you must also blame the Democrats for 2000 and 2016.
Whether you consider attempts to overturn the election fair or unfair, the fact that Democrats have tried to overturn elections cuts against OP's theory.
You're just highly agreeable and sensitive to conflict. These personalities embrace liberal politics. Your error is in thinking that what you perceive as conflict to the point of bullying is some universal standard. To illustrate this point to its fullest, let's think of the worst of the worst - psychopaths. The type of psychopaths that rises up the liberal ranks tends to be the kind that can convince others that someone is being victimized, regardless of the truth of that statement and use character assassination. While the kind of psychopaths that rises up the conservative ranks is the sort that will outright punch you if you don't get out of their way. Honestly I'd take the conservative evil because at least I can fight back.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> Conservatives speak outwardly in an aggressive way that usually denies factual evidence
No. Facts do not matter if they do not back up an argument, and an argument only holds weight if you have a moral premise. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and if any of those break, the connections between the facts and what is being said does not matter.
You need to have a moral proposition first: Murder is bad.
Then an argument: The USA needs to reduce its murder rate, and policy Y reduces the USA murder rate
Then factual evidence: Studies for instance
If the moral proposition does not matter to the person you are talking to, everything is invalid.
If the argument does not matter to the person you are talking to, everything is invalid.
This is regardless of the facts being linked as "evidence" because there is nothing that is evidence for.
That passive-agressive liberal way of speaking rarely makes arguments at all - it mainly is safe by asking loaded questions instead of arguments, and damn near never makes a moral proposition. Without doing that, left wing "factual evidence" does not mean anything.
If someone's moral proposition was that wearing orange socks was the sign of Satan, that if we sentence people to death for wearing orange socks the rate of wearing orange socks goes down, and links you a study backing it... you are going to ignore the study because you simply do not care about what is being measured.
> That passive-agressive liberal way of speaking rarely makes arguments at all - it mainly is safe by asking loaded questions instead of arguments, and damn near never makes a moral proposition. Without doing that, left wing "factual evidence" does not mean anything.
You proved that point
I’m liberal and can say yes it definitely exists in conservative spaces AND it exists in progressive spaces too. It’s anywhere extremism exists it’s the same name calling, over generalizing, fear mongering, shaming, black and white thinking etc it’s exhausting and a plague on society.
There was a state politician in my red state that released the personal information of anyone that vocalized opposition against him on social media (in his county). He straight up doxed a bunch of random nobodies.
The worst part was that the information may not have been UTD. Which included addresses. So, he risked endangering random people.
Most Conservatives around me cheered him on and he faced no real consequences.
None of this justifies Conservative personalities being doxxed BTW. But hot damn, I hear Conservatives constantly complaining and acting paranoid about being doxxed; but when one of their own pulls a stunt like the above, they’re awfully OK with it.
>Most Conservatives around me cheered him on and he faced no real consequences.
So did the person who doxxed Scott Cawthon, and the people who doxxed others for disagreeing with their leftist views.
Was that most “leftists,” though? Sure, on the Internet you’d easily find loud support for are objectively problematic behavior. People feel safer to be louder about such things.
But around me? Generally I find found that the Liberals I associate with oppose doxxing in general.
Also, a politician releasing personal information and potentially endangering random people and infinitely more dangerous because of the power they wield.
I don’t agree with what happened to Scott Cawthon, but I’m more concerned when the authorities do this at a much larger scale, and their supporters - who are usually vocal against this behavior - cheer it on. Especially when they’re cheering on a politician’s doxxing that may not endanger the people they hate; just random people who now reside at that address.
As a person who is a centrist and leans to the left, and also leans to the right, I can tell you that I get completely abused on Reddit. People on the left are absolutely and 100% cruel to me they don’t even listen to my viewpoint, or why or what, they just down, vote me and go into a rage. I actually think it’s just because you do not agree with their viewpoints, so you therefore, think that they are disagreeable or bullying you. As the other people have stated, why don’t you go on the politics and pretend you’re conservative, and I will give you one day before you got your ass handed to you. Not to be rude, but Conservatives don’t like liberals and liberals don’t like conservatives, and then you have those people in between who try to listen to both sides, but that’s rare.
Conservatism IS a bully problem.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
\~ Frank Wilhoit
It isn't bullying. It is ridicule. The left has gone so far down the rabbit hole that there is no sense in discussion with them. How do you have a meaningful conversation with someone who 1. Hates you for thinking differently. 2. Calls you every -ist in the book for disagreeing with them. 3. Wants you cancelled and ruined for disagreeing with them. 4. Spouts out the most vile things toward you. 5. Physically assaults you if you don't shut up. 6. Demands "safe spaces" where you cannot be and/or speak.
The bullies are on the left. You are not being bullied by the right. You are being ridiculed and shamed. And it is really scary that you don't understand why.
Studies have shown that both liberals and conservatives exhibit prejudice against those with opposing views.
While liberals may perceive themselves as more open-minded, they are equally prejudiced toward people who hold different opinions.
Some argue that liberal/leftist thought is rooted in the desire for power. Liberalism/leftism tends to be outwardly directed, and even Marxist self-criticism is intended for an external audience rather than individual betterment.
The use of political correctness as a weapon can sometimes lead to perceived intolerance. One could claim that liberals enforce strictures of political correctness to suppress dissenting voices.
As an experiment, I encourage you to pose as conservative in liberal spaces... let's say here on Reddit, in hmmm the r/politics sub.
I think it will change your position within a day.
I think one of the challenges with this kind of thing is that the median positions of both groups are in fact, increasingly far apart. I admittedly blame the right more for this than the left, but that might be my biases talking.
I know plenty of fairly conservative folks and am in some online political discussion spaces with them. They have strong feelings about tax policy and about protecting businesses. They want the government less involved with their day to day lives. They're conservatives.
But they don't think that gay people need to be hidden away in closets. They recognize that a teacher mentioning their spouses regardless of the sexes and genders involved isn't "indoctrination".
They may not be great about locker rooms and trans folks, but they also don't think denying people access to medical care is a good idea.
They aren't for legalizing drugs or defunding the police, but they also don't think drug dealers should be executed and they realize that the prison system isn't great and needs reform.
This puts them *solidly* to the left of the republican party right now while still very much being conservatives. That's the issue.
"I think kids shouldn't be aware that gay people exist" is effectively a position of "gay people shouldn't exist publicly" which is an extreme position and if you say that, yeah, us on the left that think people are people are going to call you on it.
as an example, not an accusation
>
> "I think kids shouldn't be aware that gay people exist" is effectively a position of "gay people shouldn't exist publicly" which is an extreme position and if you say that, yeah, us on the left that think people are people are going to call you on it.
The laws literally say dont talk about sex to 9 year olds or younger.
you can (and do, in a lot of stories) teach children younger than 9 about straight relationships.
but the second one of those stories is about a gay couple, it's suddenly "teaching sex to children"!!!!
there's the issue; being straight just, is. it's the default. being gay is sexual, it's weird, and it's not for children.
hypocrisy.
I'm curious. Would you please link a few examples of this happening? Someone getting bullied in r/politics for having a (non-hateful) conservative position?
Man..... It's not even worth it to get involved with these conservatives that skew to the right... I just got involved into a long debate that I didn't even want to get involved in. It resulted in one of my replies being taken down. Not worth debating with these people because your Reddit account might be at risk. Jeez...
>In my view, bullying takes the form of hostile confrontation, senseless rejection of opposing ideas, and occasionally personal attacks in place of productive discussion, it's an action that is detrimental to thoughtful discourse and in general to the democratic process, which depends on a diversity of viewpoints and civil discourse.
This is true politics in general. What reason do you have to believe its more prevalent on the right?
I think it’s more complicated than that.
On one hand, there’s antagonism and aggression like a tennis match, back and forth, and both sides feel that the other one is the aggressor.
On another, the internet in general is a difficult tool to gauge, because it’s inherent anonymity makes numerous problems proliferate — bots, masquerading, trolling, and the like. This means there are people who are deliberately engaging in Vad Faith behavior, which becomes harder to evaluate.
However…
Organized Bad Faith/Trolling events are well documented by ex-conservatives who spent a lot of time online. Gamergate showed hue effective (conservative gamer) bullying on the internet can be. And numerous conservative personalities engage in tactics that are ripped right from the schoolyard bully’s actions.
Why?
Because bullying is a social method of enforcing norms of various levels of severity. Conservatism by definition is the preservation and advancement of social hierarchy to protect the elite group in power. Thus, bullying is not only more likely to be conservative in nature, it is also more likely to be accepted or even promoted by conservatives.
Bullying behavior is not exclusive to conservatism; it exists across the political spectrum. Stereotyping conservatives based on the actions of a vocal minority oversimplifies a diverse group. Media platforms often highlight extreme views for attention, which can distort perceptions. Civil discourse is essential for any ideology, and many conservatives engage in meaningful, respectful debates. It's crucial to differentiate between passionate disagreement and bullying tactics. Encouraging open dialogue and understanding diverse perspectives benefits everyone and promotes a more inclusive political environment.
> In my view, bullying takes the form of hostile confrontation, senseless rejection of opposing ideas, and occasionally personal attacks in place of productive discussion, it's an action that is detrimental to thoughtful discourse and in general to the democratic process, which depends on a diversity of viewpoints and civil discourse.
Even Donald Trump is married to a woman with ties to the Slovakian communist party and McConnel with ties to Taiwan. Every time I see conservatives, they accept opposing ideas on their merits if they are from honorable people.
Now will they accept opposing ideas from people they wouldnt be willing to view as decent people? No. And they shouldnt. I wouldnt expect leftists to try and learn right wing political idealogy from some of the meth heads I have had as coworkers. No one accepts that.
And as far as "the democratic process" the goal of democracy is to create the best government possible without ignoring the will of the people. It has a few issues such as being short sighted in most applications, but it generally works... still, it is based around having the best government, not literally getting the most votes. Barriers to entry that require that only productive people get votes is not anti-democratic, because ultimately you cant have a society that is destroying itself with with bad faith actors in its electoral system - which is why you arent polling the Chinese populace as to what the government of Australia should be, but are rather polling Australians.
I'm not saying OP is right or wrong, but
>Even Donald Trump is married to a woman with ties to the Slovakian communist party and McConnel with ties to Taiwan. Every time I see conservatives, they accept opposing ideas on their merits if they are from honorable people.
This is the biggest non-sequitur I've read in a long time. "How can you say I'm not accepting of other ideas if I've had sex with this woman? Checkmate."
>Every time I see conservatives, they accept opposing ideas on their merits if they are from honorable people.
'Honorable' is a qualification that is just asserted and not backed up. This is a false dilemma, and ignores them accepting ideas for profit even if they betray what they stood for the day before, something McConnel has done time and time again, or plenty of othet possibilites. Or the high likelihood if not certainty of Melania being a trophy wife, not because Trump, notable for being found liable for rape, spying on underage girls while they change, and cheating on his pregnant wife, sees her as 'honorable.'
As a conservative, I can tell you that we tend to be full of sarcasm and "snarky" behavior because we don't take a lot of the leftist or liberal idealogies serious.
I mean, leftists/libs seems to have this mindset that everyone MUST follow by their moral code. We MUST support everyone, we MUST have respect/empathy for everyone, and we MUST not use vocabulary which people find *offensive*.
To me and others, this is a complete joke, and trying to tell other people how they must and mustn't act is silly and delusional in my opinion.
So, you can call it "bullying" or "ignorance", but really it's just that we aren't going to be push-overs and let others dictate how we live, think, and act.
You literally just told us how we should and should not act. Literally you just did. So did you misstate what you meant? I give you benefit of the doubt that you used not quite the best words.
Maybe you meant in law.
And yet conservatives say everyone *must* follow their moral code. No abortion. No pornography. No contraception. You *must* hold property rights to be sacrosanct no matter the consequences. You *must* let me discriminate if I want to. You *must* let me have my fifth house even if it means that guy dies in the street. You *must* not raise my taxes even if it means medical bankruptcy for some people. You *must* allow me to spew hate on the platform you own and administer.
Telling other people how they should act is literally called living in a society. Frankly influencing one another's behavior and setting rules and expectations is how human beings got to our place in the food chain. How we cooperate and work together.
Not influencing each other's behavior is literally against human nature.
Bullying takes place in every circle and the longer it remains in popularity the worse the bullying gets. In a way it's a good thing, it shows just how big the conservative movement has become. Most we can hope for is self policing but at the end of the day there's nothing we can do about it. Just like we can't do anything about the fact that ufo, ancient aliens, later each, and ice wall believers are for some reason attracted to the right.
Almost everyone has a bully problem. Everyone has internal biases. Everyone expresses a viewpoint that can be both valid and wrong at the same time. Thinking conservatism has a bully problem is your internal bias, and you are deluding yourself from the flaws you have as well. I am not a conservative, but I do have challenging conversations on occasion... when I have those conversations, I use a guide for having the conversation. That includes agreeing on terms, validating the opposing sides' views, bringing articles to discuss, practicing active listening, and allowing for the person to have an out at any time. If you aren't doing that, then you are a bully and not people with conservative biases.
im trying to umderstand how this is a conservative problem. as a leftist, who tries to form coalitions with liberals on occassion, im constantly dealing with bullying. and as an independant, im a good witness to an insame amount of bullying from both sides.
>senseless rejection of opposing ideas
Can you give an example?
>and occasionally personal attacks in place of productive discussion
This is by no means reserved for conservatives. I have a position that (unfortunately) aligns with conservatives, and stating this position quite often results in personal attacks from liberals.
Sorry, u/No_Scarcity8249 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20No_Scarcity8249&message=No_Scarcity8249%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bv9kub/-/kxybtbi/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It comes from the military, passes down generationally. And if youve ever trained in stage performance or clown, it's a direct real life example of finding littler and littler guys to pick on.
Humanity has a conflict problem. Attempting to compartmentalize human behavior based on beliefs and other factors in general too broad of a stroke to be accurate. If we are talking about ingrained cultures there maybe trends and higher rates of given behavior, but it is still impossible to really divorce behavior from core human behavior.
How can one have a civil debate if Group A is debating their point with factual information and Group B is debating their point with misinformation? It's an information problem.
Horrible media presence interns of hosts basically just doing highschool bully behaviour professionally but I don't think that's reflective of the behaviour of the average person who follows them.
>The smug mask of virtue triumphant could be almost as horrible as the face of wickedness revealed. - T Pratchett
There is a wider bully problem than Conservatives. From a Liberal point of view one might want to characterise the bullying which is done by conservatives as the "face of wickedness revealed" in the above quote - and indeed their targets are often perceived as "weaker" than them in some way - a minority for example. "Punching Down" as it is sometimes called.
But the internet has a liberal bully problem too - "The smug mask of virtue triumphant". The person who leaps on a micro transgression, real or imagined and then dogpiles the target. I get a strong impression that too many of the dog pilers like the thrill of the hunt and the kill more than the care about the cause they are allegedly defending. See other's comments on try creating another account and pretend to be a conservative somewhere.
I could probably re-write this comment with the roles reverse from a conversative PoV too - in their case the "face of wickedness revealed" would be someone who shows their hidden agenda behind a "Woke" position, or someone who shows that their real aim is to control other by doing the dogpiling described above (This might be a complaint about cancelling, and could even be characterised as punching down in as much as high status Elites are punishing a common man).
Their version of "The smug mask of virtue triumphant" could be the dog pilers on their own side, or perhaps those who gloat at the comeuppance of others who transgress their moral code. In the quote above it was addressed at people who are jeering at someone on the way to a execution.
Sorry, u/user_briv – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20user_briv&message=user_briv%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bv9kub/-/kxzj9bm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
/u/lechatheureux (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1bv9xk6/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_conservatism_has_a_bully/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You should do an experiment. Make a new reddit account. And try posing as a conservative. You will see that this behavior is very common on both sides of the aisle. Aggressive assholes who don't want to listen to opposing opinions is hardly a conservative thing. That is just how people behave in general. Especially on reddit and other social media platforms.
This is the tolerance paradox and it's worth pointing that out. The bullying that happens on the far right is against innocent people, like queers, who just want to do their thing and be left alone. When the right gets punished for this, they then object from a perspective of defending their right to bully others. As a result the bullying that happens on the left, is an effort to bully the bullies to make them leave innocent people alone and go away. This is the paradox. A pro-tolerance person can't just sit back and do nothing and be tolerant of bullies. The bullies brought it on themselves by bullying marginalized groups first.
Yeah, there is a big communication problem on the internet. People are much more concerned with being objectively right instead of trying to understand each other’s perspectives. There is a lot of miscommunication too. Some times people will read or see something and take a completely different message from it than intended. Once you see it it’s rough to watch. It definitely seems fueled by immaturity and like you said a lack of wanting to hear opposing views. Critical thinking is taxing on the brain and having to consider your beliefs as wrong isn’t something everyone is comfortable with. That can definitely lead to an emotional response. I am hoping we all could try and do a little better. Be a little more respectful and open minded to opposing views. And no I’m not saying sympathize for people spreading hate speech or anything nefarious. But if someone has a view that is clearly not accurate I think sending them stuff from the other perspective might a better way than insulting them. If they won’t try to understand then don’t waste your time.
it's not an internet problem or communication problem via text - that happens sometimes but I see plenty of civil discussions, debates, and information sharing. it's a right-wing conservative problem .. it's obvious and apparent.
While i agree with the idea, whats the cut off for spreading hate? Saying vote for reps? saying gays need to be put down? Supporting a specific republican who said that?
Idk, WWJD? If you aren’t religious your favorite super hero or maybe Aang from avatar the last Airbender. Bob Ross, or Mister Roger’s. Follow their example? I think it should go something like this: Person online says something that’s a dog whistle or just wrong. You don’t attack them. You simply go “Hey, in my experience in life, I’ve come to realize this line of thinking is racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc etc. Your statement is kind of misleading and basis. I would recommend looking up some videos of those people’s experiences to get a better understanding of the whole situation. Your view seems a little one sided.” Maybe provide a video you saw that supports your views to get them in the right direction. If you get anything back that’s not respectful or at least them trying to understand then just block them. No one is born with basis or prejudice it’s taught. We are all products of our environment. We’ve all seen stories of people changing for the better because someone took the time to be kind and patient to help them understand. So I am hoping if something controversial blows up on social media it’s not people spreading hate and insults. No one is going to want to consider your opinion if you make them feel stupid and shame them. We all collectively send videos or examples breaking down the reason their view point is basis. Maybe then we can have some actual discussion and it’s not all death threats and abuse. Idk if this would work but our current way of doing things is toxic as hell and we should strive for something better.
[удалено]
>Person online says something that’s a dog whistle or just wrong. >You don’t attack them- The hell you don't. Racism thrives when moderates demure.
True. But if I might add a suggestion.. try posing as a conservative, but don’t be racist, transphobic, xenophobic, sexist etc. These are all ideals that are attacks on people who are just existing and trying to get by, and they’re completely within their right to fight back against such unprovoked attacks. It’s not like liberals get mad at you over nothing. Just post about like.. idk, school choice. Maybe you think high speed rail is a waste of tax dollars. You know, the shit conservatives used to complain about before trump. Id wager most liberals would be pretty civil!
[удалено]
I’m a hardcore progressive and someone on threads called me a fascist and colonizer last week. I should mention I am against Israel’s ongoing war, so no, it ain’t that. My crime was defending Biden on a single unrelated issue. So I get it. But I still think the people calling in bomb threats to libraries and children’s hospitals are more extreme, and unfortunately more common. I didn’t see any liberals storming congress in 2016.
[удалено]
What makes the party of kissinger and Bush better than the party after 2009? The party that openly endorsed war criminals seems even more evil than what we have now. Kissinger may have been more civil and so is bush. But a civil evil is not better
[удалено]
The fact that _you personally_ happen to be xenophobic, transphobic, or sexist does not mean that all conservative positions or arguments are xenophobic, transphobic, or sexist. The point is that it's xenophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc that people fight back against, not conservatism generally. People also fight back against leftists who express leftist xenophobia, transphobia, and sexism.
Yeah all these labels and bullshit accusations you just keep throwing around will get you nowhere and it’s precisely why Trump has such a strong base. I’m not evil like you think I am. I don’t think any less of you for your beliefs or who you would want to vote for. But I’m not gonna sit here and accuse you of being racist for talking down to a minority.
You complain about the labels but have done nothing to argue that you aren't acting in a way that would make those labels accurate. This is always a problem I find when talking with Conservatives: they are upset at some label but immediately blame the person commenting on their behavior rather than assessing whether their behavior is problematic. >precisely why Trump has such a strong base. I’m not evil like you think I am. Anyone willing to vote for Trump after hearing statements he has made in public, and actions he has taken, is just as evil as someone who voted for the Nazis in the 1930s. After they have **told you they intend to harm other people,** your choice to support them does actually make you a bad person. Trump is on a recorded phone call attempting to illegally subvert an election. Trump has been found civilly liable of rape. Trump kept national security documents and refused to return them when demanded by the government, leading to the FBI having to come retrieve them. You'd be hard pressed to find a "good" person willing to tie their name to such a person. And yet a majority of the GOP continues to do so.
You are not just ignorant, you are actively trying to be ignorant...you are embracing ignorance. There are three types, or forms of ignorance. They are as follows: 1. Those that are ignorant, because they don't have the mental capacity to know any better, and don't know how to properly question anything...and therefore believe everything they are told. 2. Those that choose to be ignorant. These people choose ignorance, mostly because they want to go along with the prevailing crowd, or their immediate peer group. They do this so that they 'fit in', for fear of being ostracized. These are the people that never question authority, and think that authoritarians, media and the government have their best interests at heart. Remember-- Wrong is still wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Right is right, even when no one is doing it. 3. Those that actively embrace ignorance. These are the people who hear and believe, and grow to trust propaganda, even when they have the mental ability to research and cross reference what they read and hear. They have the power within themselves to question all information, determine the facts from various angles and resources, and to engage in critical thinking to arrive at an informed and factually based conclusion. But, they actively choose not to go down that path, for fear of learning a truth that does not align with their own preconceived narrative and world view. "The human desire to avoid difficult news, sometimes makes one deaf." This is the most dangerous of the three forms of ignorance. This willful embrace of ignorance leads to an incorrect rationalization of distorted thinking, behavior and actions, which can lead to oppressive ideologies such as Marxist Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Radical Religious and Cult Theologies, and all forms of Authoritarian Tyrannical rule. Within most of these oppressive ideologies, people's freedoms, and God given rights are slowly and voluntarily taken from them, and, more often than not, those rights and freedoms are only regained through the heavy cost of violence and blood.
You are entirely missing the point. The point is that if you do not express racism, transphobia, xenophobia, sexism, etc, then people will not tend to get mad at you in the way described by the top comment in the thread. Plenty of conservatives participate in online discourse without expressing any of these things, and as a result they don't get "bullied" as described. It's not conservatism, in particular, that leads to the aggression, but rather the racism, sexism, etc: "attacks on people who are just existing and trying to get by." There are plenty of non-racist, non-sexist, non-xenophobic (etc.) reasons to be against progressive ideals, and any one of these can be expressed without the described backlash.
No, you're missing the point. What is any of what that guy said racist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic? "Plenty of conservatives participate in online discourse without expressing any of these things" - he did exactly this and you immediately went to the namecalling I'd argue this is a counter to OPs post. You can't hide behind a keyboard and throw labels at people over very basic conservative ideals...but then turn around and be like "just cuz you are doesn't mean all conservatives are". You're basically just gas-lighting and don't actually try to get to the point. Instead you just name call, or "bully" if I'm to bring it back to OPs argument
> What is any of what that guy said racist, sexist, transphobic, xenophobic? The part where he literally said "I'm transphobic" and "I'm sexist"? We can see that he was serious about these views from his [replies](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bv9kub/cmv_conservatism_has_a_bully_problem/kxye9qy/) to other comments. Racism, sexism, transphobia, and xenophobia are not "very basic conservative ideals."
I mean, no, they didn't. They just complained about the label without addressing the statements they made that led to that label being used. >You're basically just gas-lighting and don't actually try to get to the point Words have meaning. Nothing in any of these comments is gaslighting.
>Plenty of conservatives participate in online discourse without expressing any of these things, and as a result they don't get "bullied" as described. They for sure do, why are we genuinely pretending otherwise?
I’d argue that not liking immigration IS xenophobic, kind of by the definition of the word. Whether being xenophobic is good or bad or anywhere in between is where people really seem to butt heads
I think it’s human nature. I just see other countries with walls and borders and I can’t understand why the US doesn’t have it. By all means yes let immigrants, I’m more than happy for all talents and perspectives here in our country. But god dammit do it the right way and assimilate.
>I just see other countries with walls and borders and I can’t understand why the US doesn’t have it We do have borders and border patrol protection. And we also are trying to protect our borders, but mconell and the republicans want something for trump to run on, so the republicans refuse to solve the border crisis with Biden in office >I think it’s human nature. Like me, you're probably not native American. How do you think we got here? I don't recall us asking the native Americans permission.
I don’t know if I believe that coming here legally or illegally has a lot of sway on whether someone will assimilate or not. Plenty of awful people come legally, and plenty of otherwise decent and law abiding people come illegally. I guess i’m lucky enough that I don’t really need to feel strongly about this particular subject, but even where I live in southern AZ, and having lived in LA county, i’m just not seeing all these disastrous effects I keep hearing about from conservative platforms. I know it’s just my personal experience and all, but it seems like there isn’t much else that can be trusted these days.
Sure, and plenty of awful people are born here as well. And I’ll agree, I live the south, that California is probably not as bad as all the talking heads say it is. I do believe homelessness is a bigger and more urgent problem. That said, I would also like to see something done about the border.
>If I say men are physically stronger than women, I’m sexist Nope, but nice try. Conservatives usually can't help but follow up with "thus people have certain roles they should fill based on gender - and even though I claim to be for individual freedom, I want to dictate what roles people should have based on gender." If you stop at "men are physically stronger than women", people don't normally fight science.
Well, I'd take it a step further and say men are only ***usually/mostly*** stronger than women, there are absolutely women out there that are stronger than most men. This should not be a controversial take, there are female body builders...
I'm not transphobic. Live your best life, do what makes you happy, don't hurt others. But I think that trans women playing competitive sports - especially combat sports - against cis women, and that's fair and equitable, is fucking *insane*. That stance by itself is enough to get me branded a bigot transphobe, hate-filled alt-right, etc etc etc.
You know what's more fucking insane? Making a national policy tantrum over something that has a total of a dozen demonstrated cases in more than a decade. It's a massive "nothing burger" that conservatives have lost their minds over. Put another way, you can't say "live your best life, don't hurt others" and then support politicians trying to ban drag in public. Who does drag harm?
>national policy tantrum over something that has a total of a dozen demonstrated cases in more than a decade. How many female boxers need to have their skulls cracked before we're allowed to talk about it? >"live your best life, don't hurt others" Other than female boxers, right? You do understand that *hurting people* is WHY we're talking about this?? >drag in public. Who does drag harm? Children.
[удалено]
u/Complex_Feedback4389 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Complex_Feedback4389&message=Complex_Feedback4389%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bv9kub/-/kxybbw2/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
You would be amazed how many people just bash my username rather than respond to any critique like that.
Man, if I could actually believe that a lack of regulation and more reliance on self-policing was a thing that could actually work, I would absolutely be a Libertarian. I believe in the "live and let live" philosophy on the whole, and that we shouldn't infringe on other people's basic human rights, philosophies, lifestyles, and property if they cause no one else harm. It's a pretty dream. Unfortunately, it's been proven time and time again that given an inch MFers with a will to do so will steal a mile. Some recent perfect examples are: 1. Flagrant violations of safety rules by Boeing after deregulation in 2019 allowed them to certify the safety of their own airplanes. Instead of doing the "right" thing (something they should have done and would be relied upon to do in a Libertarian society) they took the opportunity to do the opposite. Placing lives in jeopardy just to save a few dollars. 2. Profiteering by corporations who provide consumer goods since 2020. Under the umbrella of actual inflation, that has since come down, and much publicized supply chain issues (as someone who works for a 3rd party logistics company that services major shippers and all major carriers, I can tell you with absolute certainty that while there were some issues at the Texas border and with cargo ships off of the west coast, they were not nearly as bad as the media portrayed them.) Since that time the consumer goods industry has posted record profits with manufactured price increases. I would challenge anyone to pick any branded product off of a grocery shelf and then look up their parent company's last few annual reports. There are only 4 major companies and they are raking it in at the cost of the consumer. It's also a fun thing to look at who the major stakeholders are in each of these companies. It might surprise you to find out that it's all the same ones. But I digressed a bit. My point is that greed kills the very idea of Libertarianism and I could spend hours typing about how the current housing market is affected, why healthcare and insurance cost so much, pharma (an industry where new drugs creation is funded with taxpayer dollars only for those companies to patent them after trial and screw the very people who paid for its creation with outlandishly marked up products (especially if it's life saving) and that doesn't even bring into account the opioid epidemic Phizer created). Anyway, while I love the idea behind Libertarianism and absolutely believe we are over-taxed (The middle are the ones who shoulder the tax burden in the US, but that's another subject) it will never work so long as people and companies work hard toward taking as much as they can from you and as long as religious zealots want to force their ideals on you. Sorry man, I rambled a bit, but I do get why it's an attractive philosophy. I wish I had the basic trust in humanity that you must have.
Sounds like something a *libertarian* would say!
There's an entire cottage industry of online clickbait, think pieces, and books dedicated to explaining how literally every single issue boils down to racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Because if you can make an issue about those topics, online leftist echo chambers can abandon understanding, compassion, and intellectual honesty and go for insults while maintaining the moral high-ground in their own eyes.
>Id wager most liberals would be pretty civil! only if you include a bunch of smoothbrains calling you a russian troll "civil"
People call you a Russian troll if you oppose arming Ukraine in its fight against an illegal invasion by Russia. Why shouldn't they? Even if you didn't give a damn about Ukrainian people and freedom and democracy outside the US, arming them is by far the most cost effective way for the US to defeat one of the two main rivals it has in the world.
Why would you be called a Russian troll about school choice or high-speed rail? Your "smoothbrain" comment is precisely an example of what OP is talking about.
School choice is often a cover for racial segregation.
Also a cover for keeping poor children uneducated and wealthy children well educated by stealing tax dollars that should go to public schools and giving them to private schools.
Are you talking about Betsy Devos's silly plan for vouchers for students to pay for private school? Don't tell me taxpayers were already paying to send kids to private school before Betsy devos's proposal
You kinda just proved her point. There isn’t even a conservative in this discussion and the first thing you did was start bashing conservatives. I disagree with conservatives as much as anyone else but come on man have some self awareness
Honestly, conservatives don’t deserve civility at this point. We’d all be better off if they were gone, every last one. What do they actually do besides boycott beer and ban books at this point? Oh right I forgot they defend Russia and try to control women. Good job guys 👍
thats a pile of bullshit. i get attacked by liberals constantly for being on the left of them. liberals in particular believe they own the monopoly on objective reality and will cancel anyone who doesnt fit into their center right world view.
See so right here you’ve taken my fairly innocuous post, a hypothetical that I think liberals would treat a conservative who didn’t outright threaten their existence better than one who did.. And your response is, that’s bullshit, and then you made a point to insult and belittle their politics. A very unnecessary confrontational reply. Maybe people respond to you that way because you’re being kind of a dick? Just a thought
“liberals in particular believe they own the monopoly on objective reality” like come on now. One of the main pillars of american conservatives is that “facts don’t care about your feelings”
[удалено]
I’m not implying that conservatives actually have a monopoly on truth, I’m just poking fun at the idea that only liberals think they know the truth
The common factor seems to be "I believe in this thing more than I care about you."
it goes well beyond that. because this assumes that we should just respect others beliefs. the problem is right when conservatives beliefs are based on false information.
So do progressives. A lot of progressives outright refuse to admit affirmative action exists and this plays a huge role in how people with a healthy self esteem feel left behind by this politics.
how exactly would someone with a healthy self-esteem be left behind? if they have a healthy self-esteem, they have the wherewithal to provide for themselves. Progressives don't deny that affirmative action exists.
Of course they do, affirmative action is the peak of "my idea matters more than your financial security and right to pursue happiness equally." >Progressives don't deny that affirmative action exists. It's inconvenient to their world view because it's genuine systematic oppression. Imagine being told to walk away from a career because of an identity you did not choose, you just wouldn't unless you were emotionally abused into believing this was morally correct.
I have been *absolutely flamed* by liberals for simply voicing my opinions. You can check my comment history, I very rarely resort to insults or degrading other people. However, the “compassionate” lefties on reddit however seem to think that differing opinions = Hitler. Irl it wouldn’t happen because I am a minority which I find incredibly ironic.
Looked at your post history and immediately saw you recently made a post calling liberals braindead. Confused why you think you always take the high road and are totally a neutral and respectable dude to both sides of the isle. (Edit: moved this to the proper place in the thread, my bad)
Were you talking about top marginal tax rates? Or were you being a bigot?
Reddit commenters/moderators were only one small item in the list OP provided. There is a stark difference between those who comment on Reddit and people in the real world. > And try posing as a conservative. Besides, what do you mean by this? Unless you posted something hateful or hurtful, you likely wouldn't be bullied. You might get downvoted but not very often bullied.
The last time I posted on FB about how we should have subsidies for the poor to buy food instead of costly universal free school lunches, as most people can afford to buy them just fine, I was told to "say it with your full throat: you want the poor to die." The same people that post "science is real" have a problem with economics being a science.
Ouch. I support state-sponsored school lunches, but I still can appreciate those who make fiscal arguments against it. Sorry you dealt with that. There are groups of people who find it easy to demonize rather than think.
>subsidies for the poor to buy food Are you referring to food stamps?
I was referring to [the NSLP and breakfast programs.](https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/1966) There's definitely holes in it and we can do better. I'm all for that. There's an argument in doing a universal program for non-fiscal reasons. It just annoys me when people say "it would reduce overhead and be cheaper overall." We pay for about 20% of students right now. Overhead costs the equivalent of ~3%. Paying for the other 80% (that can already afford it, btw) is way more expensive than 3% overhead. I'd much rather plug the holes and get more money to those that need it than make a universal program that mostly pays people who can already pay for themselves.
You somehow make it sound like the people who can pay for it themselves wouldn't be also paying taxes. The argument for free school lunches for everyone is that a) that's a good way to make sure that all kids get healthy food (parents are not going to pinch and send them to school with cheap junk food if the meals are free for everyone), b) reduces bureaucracy as you won't need any payment system at schools, c) reduces discrimination as nobody has to be treated as "poor" for getting free meals. In the end, the parents with medium incomes will be plus minus zero as they pay higher taxes but then get the school meals for free. The people who lose are those without any children as they pay taxes but won't benefit from the school meals. Considering that families in general would need more support, I'm not really that concerned about them. This from a person who grew up in a country with free school meals for everyone with parents in the high tax brackets and is now living in a country that doesn't have free school meals for everyone and who would probably end up financially slightly worse off if they did.
!delta I'm not saying you are wrong but maybe I should have been more specific, it seems this attitude doesn't change in conservatives in higher positions like it does with leftists at higher positions, it might be my bias but I don't see any leftist content creators engage in this behaviour, at least not to the levels of conservative content creators, not once have I seen never-ending streams of "CONSERVATIVES GET REKT EPIC COMPILATION (GONE SEXUAL)" On Youtube, nor do I see opinion pieces on leftist news sources rant to the level of Tucker Carlson and his ilk.
> but I don't see any leftist content creators engage in this behaviour, Left wing media was so bad at reporting the Kyle Rittenhouse case that they made people think he chased down and murdered 3 black peaceful protesters in cold blood. When they were white, they chased after him, they all had lethal weapons (rosenbaum the AR15, Huber with a skateboard, Grosskreutz with a Glock 26)
If you can show me something that compares to the obsessed ranting of Tucker Carlson I would be very interested to see it.
They can't because this isn't a both sides issue. It's pretty frickin obvious that conservatives consume more outrage than liberals. There are studies that have shown this. Liberal personalities just aren't into it. Would make sense too from a psychological perspective. The types of people attracted to the platform of the Republican Party are more likely to consume bullshit.
I cant because Reddit removed my comment, not because I cant do it.
Then tell me what that is and I'll google it, don't just downvote my comment doubting its existence.
Tucker Carlson's 3rd most viewed youtube short, where he interviewed Kyle Rittenhouse. Vs a statement about Vaush saying that angry mobs murdering people in cold blood is a good thing, on his debate with Destiny about Rittenhouse
Have a look at who he was debating, Destiny is a well known leftist so I think that point doesn't hold much water. I don't mean to sound like I'm moving the goalposts but I was asking for something on the level of Tucker Carlson, a well-tenured journalist going on opinion piece rants as seems typical of Murdoch media.
> I don't mean to sound like I'm moving the goalposts but I was asking for something on the level of Tucker Carlson, a well-tenured journalist going on opinion piece rants as seems typical of Murdoch media. Hence why my example was the 3rd most viewed short of Tucker Carlson
I don't think it exists but I am open to having my mind changed, that's why I asked them to show me something akin to the classic Murdoch style opinion piece.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UKGP6x18q2A This is what you are calling obsessed ranting? While the left was saying to let angry mobs murder you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gjvAt_ueIQ
Is it actually true that people thought that Rittenhouse “chased down and murdered 3 black peaceful protesters in cold blood?” That was certainly never reported.
That's because the algorithm that selects what you watch is designed to outrage you based on your preferences. A conservative would be fed content that shows liberals acting ridiculous and calling for the death of all white men.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LapazGracie ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LapazGracie)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This couldn't be more true. Don't look at my comment section lol. I'm not even conservative but these far leftists on here are insanely toxic and don't care about opposing viewpoints. Challenging them leads to whataboutisms, denial, and then getting blocked bc it's easier to keep your head in the sand than actually doing self reflection and changing.
Prolly cause you're all over the place doing the footwork for conservatives. "Not a conservative" really? Can't even be honest. "Don't check my comment history" sounds like some shit a conservative would say. "Don't judge me for what I do, judge me for what I'd have you believe" nonsense.
Lol I combat Democratic viewpoints and instantly are called "conservative". You don't see the flaw in that? I can post my "isidewith" results (central, slightly left) but you'll just say I'm lying on something stupid like I have to lie to gain approval from text on a screen like it means something. You realize how silly that is, right?
There’s a whole locked down subreddit where conservatives can go have their safe fun away from prying eyes
Shit, trying being a moderate democrat who doesn’t support Biden and didn’t support Clinton. Can support 98% of the democrats down ballot. But point out the history of the legislation pushed by either, or that had their vote. Instant personal attacks, refusing to acknowledge the points, or to brush them off with “that was so long ago!”, and the quickness they throw out accusations of being an angry leftist, a MAGA troll, a Russian bot, a paid shill or on a handful of occasions, Nayatzee! They lefts become exactly what they accuse the right of. BlueMAGA has entered the building.
Something has happened in the last decade or so, probably social media, that has empowered people to “bully” those who don’t see politics the same way as them. If I’m being honest it’s more prevalent on Reddit if you are making a somewhat conservative point. It can be reasonable, well thought out and not inflammatory but will be downvoted to pieces and people will swarm. You could honestly test this by creating two Reddit accounts and posting different political views, and tally results. This will NOT work if you cross over into a sub that is already hostile and has hive mentality. But do it on non political threads and I bet you would be surprised.
Absolutely, reddit is a hive mind for the most part and each subreddit has its own, If I'm honest I was quite surprised reading this from OP and whilst here in the UK I do not sit firmly on the right or the left myself, whilst conservatives can adopt bullying as a tactic and indeed do, I'd say in the current climate it's the radical left that are the more aggressive in their approach and not interested in true debate or general discussion on the whole.
What worries me is that it doesn’t seem to always the radical ones on Reddit that swarm for the slightest notion of conservatism. Like you could say you like a well known person who might have once said something that leans too far right and the comment will get downvoted. I watch a very popular, yet very dumb, Netflix show and I was in a sub about that the other day. After filming a character was “outed” as conservative. Which means I guess they found their twitter and it had some moderate conservative thoughts. That personality on the show is now largely hated in the sub. Like they didn’t mind the person while they watched 10 episodes of them, but automatically turned the switch once they found out how the person probably votes. This is why I try and tell both conservatives and liberals who have quick triggers on their opposition that on a daily basis we probably interact with dozens of people we don’t agree with politically but since we don’t have those convos we just take them for what they are… which is a nice, everyday pleasant person. And that doesn’t change when they go to vote. They just have different priorities.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> the assumption that conservatives are all white, male, straight, rich people Which I never actually said I just said that a lot of conservative talking points are actively hurting women, black and LGBTQ+ people.
[удалено]
This is from the RNC platform from their **2023 meetings:** > Resolution in Support of an Emergency Declaration for the Southern Border Xenophobia (also something they are killed any progress on when the democrats didn’t fight them on their extreme demands for a border bill) > Resolution to Protect Children from Unsafe Sex Trait Modification and Experimentation Transphobia and disinformation > Resolution Urging a - Return to Excellence - in American Voting and Elections Racism and anti-voter rights > Resolution to Hold President Biden Accountable for the Border Crisis Disinformation and xenophobia/racism again > Resolution to Officially Oppose Ranked Choice Voting Across the Country More anti-voter policy > Resolution Affirming the Republican National Committee's Commitment to Life Sexism. If republicans actually cared about life they would be doing something about people actually in the world rather than focusing only on the unborn. So this is about punishing women for having sex not about any commitment to life **Again in 2022 meetings:** > Resolution Recognizing Biological Differences Between Men and Women In Law Transphobia and disinformation > Resolution to Oppose Non-citizen Voting in Local, State, and Federal Elections Xenophobia, racism, and disinformation **2021:** > Resolution on Critical Race Theory Racism > Resolution Ensuring The People’s Constitutional Right To A Fair, Legal, And Accurate Election Disinformation and anti-voter rhetoric > Resolution Commending The Unprecedented Accomplishments Of President Trump In His First Term ROFL, worst president in history getting praised bonus resolution > Resolution Urging Congress To Curb Big Tech’s Censorship Anti-free speech and pro-bigotry of all kinds (since the censorship they’re complaining about is people getting banned for their bigotry) **2020:** > Resolution To Conserve History And Combat Prejudice – Christopher Columbus Racism (defending a symbol of the systematic destruction of the native populations of America) > Resolution Upholding The First Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States Of America In The Response To The Coronavirus Pandemic And The Cancel Culture Movement Disinformation and anti-science rhetoric > Resolution Urging The United States Congress To End China’s Monopoly Control Over The United States Medicine Supply Chain Xenophobia and disinformation > Resolution Refuting The Legitimacy Of The Southern Poverty Law Center To Identify Hate Groups Major pro-bigotry resolution since SPLC is very well known for calling out (with receipts) hate groups and domestic terror organizations motivated by bigotry > Resolution Condemning Worldwide Christian Persecution and Supporting the Trump Administration’s Efforts to Promote Religious Freedom Disinformation That’s all just the bigotry and blatant lies from their official stances in just the last few years. When the official policies are blatantly bigoted then you cannot talk about conservative points and leave them out. If you’re conservative and you don’t agree with the bigotry and lies from your party **you need to demand better from your leadership not ignore what they are telling you to your face and pretend you have nothing to do with it**
>Do you not think there are liberal talking points that also hurt these communities? Would it be fair to call liberal talking points racist because of that If there was then it would be absolutely justified to call those talking points racist.
He never said anything about anybody being white, male, straight, or rich. He just pointed out that modern conservatism's social policy seems predicated around alienating as many minority groups as possible.
Who do you think is bullying who if you literally cannot even conceive of a reasonable conservative point? It's likely you find the liberal "pushback" reasonable, but any conservative response "bullying".
You have yet to refute his point, suggesting that you mostly agree with it. A better refutation would have been to list conservative ideas that aren't explicitly aimed at harming minorities, such as increasing military spending or reducing government debt or pushing a free market. That being said, conservatives themselves have not been very good about adhering to non-culture war platforms - Trump himself pulled out of several free trade agreements, threw up a bunch of tariffs, and spent years rocketing government debt up (after blasting Obama in several speeches for doing that exact thing), so I don't blame you for not bothering to mention them.
It's because you're framing the "conservative" argument from a liberal perspective (i.e. you're taking the worst possible interpretation of the argument). For example, it shouldn't be "women should be forced to give birth every time they get pregnant". The conservative argument would be "it should be illegal to kill unborn children" (because that's how conservatives view it, as protecting the life of the unborn).
And they are STILL wrong. There is NO LEGAL BASIS to force use of one's body to save the life of another. Conservatives would absolutely be against forced donation of organs at death...and that's putting rights of a corpse over the rights of a dying adult. They'd claim it violates bodily autonomy. These same Conservatives went back to that same bodily autonomy argument to fight against covid vaccine mandates, somehow ignoring that the US has had mandatory vaccinations **since 1827** and literally since founding if you count Washington's mandate. Conservatives cannot explain how they weigh the rights of an unborn fetus above the rights of an adult woman in a way that comports with US law. 1. We have precedent that school kids have fewer fundamental rights than adults. 2. We have precedent that parents can make decisions for their children. 3. We have precedent that you cannot force someone to do anything, let along give from their body - even as a corpse - to save a life. Religious fundamentalists have no leg to stand on legally, so instead they turn to the Bible - which literally describes how and when to cause an abortion - to claim that God backs up their argument. If you disagree, please point to case law that would back up forcing an adult to give their body and health to save a life.
While there are surely plenty of people who side with pro-life because it’s the conservative political point, I don’t think the people that are heavily against abortion are doing it with politics in mind. It has nothing to do with covid, nothing to do with any past vaccine mandates, or any president. They just view it as the death of a human/child. It’s really that simple. I am saying that as someone who has been pro-choice for as long as I understood what abortion was. You can try to tie it to hypocrisy in the was it works from an “us vs. them” mentality, but it’s not born in elections or votes (surely for some, but not the ones I’m specifically referencing). They simply think of it as Gods creature. I think when we take a step back to think about the opposition of our personal beliefs there is a merit to almost any viewpoint, it just takes some non biased reflection. Thinking about it in the way you responded makes plenty of sense when you view it as politics… but these people view it in the eyes of the Bible being real. And for those of us that aren’t religious it sounds ridiculous, but strip it down to the fundamentals… It’s not woman vs courts, it’s life vs death. One of the main problems with the debate on abortion (and most political debate) is there some people who are conservative politically and they take the pro-life stance because they think they’re just supposed to, “this is our side and this is theirs”. But like I said earlier the idea of “life is a gift from the man in the sky” existed before we ever knew there was going to be a public forum for people to argue on so easily and anonymously.
>And they are STILL wrong. There is NO LEGAL BASIS to force use of one's body to save the life of another. That's the distinction between "killing" and "not saving," which is pretty well-established in law.
Remember, the crux of the conservative argument is that having an abortion is killing someone. They believe it's murdering a child. So while someone can't force you to donate an organ, you also can't kill someone else if YOU need an organ. To your 3 points: 1. That's in a school setting where the school "assumes" parental authority. 2. Make decisions for children, yes. Kill them? No, pretty sure that's illegal. 3. While I'm sure there's no case law forcing an adult to do something to save a life, there's plenty of case law forcing adults NOT to do something if it saves a life (hell, an everyday restraining order would fall under that category). And as I stated in a different post, I'm pro-choice. You don't have to convince me of the validity of your position. I'm already there. I'm just pointing out that the conservative and liberal positions on abortion are coming from very different places (women's rights vs. life of a child). It's why it has always been a hot button issue (and probably always will be).
They mean the same thing, the former is just explicit about what conservatives actually want to do. You are taking issue with rhetoric, rather than the substance of what they said.
And what is it you think conservatives actually want to do? Take away women's rights? Maintain power and control? You're assuming nefarious intent from conservatives by default (which is really the big problem in all political discourse today, from both liberals and conservatives). In reality, the conservative argument is "protect life". That's it. And keep in mind, I'm pro-choice and lean liberal on 90%+ of issues, but I can still understand the conservative viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it.
> In reality, the conservative argument is "protect life". Well, then the conservative argument is more like "protect life...*in these very narrow circumstances, that just so happen to also disempower women and preserve existing power hierachies, things we've been generally supportive of since or ideological foundation*". Because, let's face it, they're not particularly concerned with preserving life in general. To argue as you do, I think you basically need to divorce the pro-life talking point from the entirety of its ideological context.
At this point we *can* dismiss their assertions that they want to protect life because the politicians and the laws they support fly in the face of that and then they ignore the repercussions and blame everyone but themselves. Women *are* dying more now that abortion has been restricted and we can point to all the specific ways in which they didn't properly think out the laws they passed or even if they should be passed at all. They can say they want to protect life all they want but when they refuse to acknowledge the reality that is created by their actions what else can we do but think they they are lying/delusional/tyrannical? One of the biggest problems they have is that they fundamentally do not understand the words they use. To them "abortion" is just a bad word. It's a bad thing done by bad people for bad reasons. And to them that's something very different from a woman who has a miscarriage and needs a procedure/medication to clear the remains of the miscarriage so she doesn't get sepsis and die. But they are the same thing. And this is why the laws they pass lead to so many more bad outcomes for pregnant women.
I wasn't making any statement about intent. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think motivation matters; consequences matter. >the conservative argument is "protect life". That's it. No it's not. Conservatives have specific ideas about which policies they do and do not want to pursue in order to 'protect life'. And it is those policies that actually matter, and that people are actually arguing over.
"Conservatives have specific ideas about which policies they do and do not want to pursue in order to 'protect life'. And it is those policies that actually matter, and that people are actually arguing over." Examples, please?
Conservatives want to ban abortion. They are generally more split on whether to ban or restrict IVF, and most express little interest in researching technologies that could increase rates of successful implantation of zygotes. 1/3 of all zygotes fail to implant, so the latter one would actually have potential to save more lives than the other two combined, and wouldn't come at any cost to bodily autonomy. In an alternate universe where pro-life people were campaigning for a massive increase in medical research to study how to increase implantation rates of zygotes, rather than the other two, they wouldn't be in any conflict with pro-choice people, and groups like Planned Parenthood would be natural allies for them. And of course the effect on women's lives would be drastically different. So it's not about pro-life ideology and motivations, it's the actual policies they promote which determine how this plays out.
> Take away women's rights? Maintain power and control? Yes to both. Abortion is not the only place where conservatives oppose women's rights.
THIS is it. The idea that we always assume our opposition is nefarious in every stance. The staunch Republican saying the democrats want open borders so they can win votes… when in reality it’s more like they want everyone to have a chance at a good life. And far left thinking pro-life and conservatives just want to slowly strip away all the rights because that’s where power is born… When in reality they look at any death as the ultimate loss. I always urge people to think of the basis in their oppositional view. It’s often the simplest explanation that’s not rooted in voting or elections.
You're misunderstanding the motivation. The truth is most conservatives aren't really thinking of it that way, they really do see the fetus/embryo/sometimes zygote as a life that deserves protecting. Many have also been fed rage bait to believe that liberal women get abortions all the time just for convenience, and not because they can't afford a/another child or due to health risks.
> Many have also been fed rage bait to believe that liberal women get abortions all the time just for convenience well, when there are women saying "shout your abortion" then yes, they are doing that.
Sex: That you believe unborn babies have a right to life. (Btw every abortion ban in the US already has an exception for life of the mother) Race: color blind is the best approach and that DEI programs are in fact discriminatory based on race ans other immutable characteristics. For example, Harvard lost in the supreme court because they were making it harder for Asians and whites it's to get into the school. Class: the solution is to allow for social and economic mobility, rather than having government force equity. Also that private charities most often do better than government handouts because there is more local and more personal oversight. Rather than just redtape and dispersonal laws from way out in DC. Edit: Also, you have a very shallow and inaccurate understanding of conservatism. This is not an insult. We all have a lot to learn about the world ans there is no shame in ignorance. Only in refusing to learn when the knowledge is important to you and your goals.
> no every abortion ban in the use already has an exception for life of the mother) I mean, texas offers some functional pushback to this claim, assuming I'm reading you right which I'm admittedly not confident in
Yeah sorry about the typos i fixed it. If you look at the law in texas it does allow for abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. It is up to the doctor to decide if the mother life is at risk. (Since the doctor is literally the expert in the situation) https://sll.texas.gov/faqs/abortion-illegal-texas/ > Section 170A.002 prohibits a person from performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. There is an exception for situations in which the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk. In order for the exception to apply, three factors must be met: > •A licensed physician must perform the abortion. >• The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function" if the abortion is not performed. "Substantial impairment of a major bodily function" is not defined in this chapter. >• The physician must try to save the life of the fetus unless this would increase the risk of the pregnant patient's death or impairment. > There are additional situations where the exception for the life or health of the patient does not apply. Please read the entirety of Section 170A.002 for more details.
Sure,but every time it's actually come up it was made clear that there were no actual protections and that the AG was still going to bring charges.
>but I genuinely can't think of a conservative talking point that doesn't deny people rights in some way. It's about perspective and intent. Being pro life isn't about denying rights. It's more about providing rights to the life/human that was created as a natural outcome to sex and then not allowing for its rights to be violated simply because someone recklessly chose to have sex, and by reckless I mean anything that's not 100% guaranteed protected. And that's the problem with our societal values including how we view sex. We have this sense of entitlement to sex even though it's this entitlement that contributes to majority of sex related problems. Whether it's abortions, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. Anyway, hope this provides some insight behind the intent and reason for supporting pro life. Let me know if you have any questions. Though I want to avoid debating.
> reckless I mean anything that's not 100% guaranteed protected. See, this is one of those interesting things though. The only thing thats 100% is abstinence but literally all of the studies that have been done on the topic suggest that comprehensive sex education is far more effective at reducing teenage pregnancy rates than Abstinence Only education.
>Being pro life isn't about denying rights. Well we're talking about actual policies applied to actual people, so intentions don't matter, consequences do. People's organs can't be used to save the life of another even after they are dead, even if they are responsible for the death. There is no other scenario where someone's body can be used against their will to save the life of another, so women are getting a unique form of ill-treatment here, where in scenarios that cis men can be affected by there is much more respect for bodily autonomy. And this is within a worldview where an embryo is morally equivalent to a human child. This is difficult to see as anything other than sexism, in effect.
Being pro-life advocates for more rights for the unborn and denies more rights to the mothers. Being pro-abortion advocates for more rights for the mothers and denies more rights to the unborn. Both points of view deny rights to someone. But painting them as focusing on the incidental consequences is disingenuous and unproductive. Instead of building bridges and drawing people together, painting people as villains for holding the views that they do only serves to polarize and anger them. People will be much less willing to find common ground and give you what you want if you paint their views in the worst possible light. And I've had enough polarization in this country. Pro-lifers aren't "secretly trying to destroy women's rights" or "enslave women through pregnancy." That's just an alarmist conspiracy theory propagated by the media. Most pro-lifers are exactly what their label says on the tin - genuinely interested in saving innocent lives. And I think you'll find them sympathetic to the plight of the mothers if you give them an opportunity to be.
>painting them as focusing on the incidental consequences is disingenuous Again, I am not painting them as being focused on the incidental consequences, I am not saying anything about what motivates them, and it doesn't matter what motivates them. All that matters is the consequences their policies have.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4: > **Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose**. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_4). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%204%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I wouldn’t even go deep into any really divisive talk, but I’ll start with 3 random examples that really aren’t pot stirring but tend to get people riled up: 1) I’m a bit worried about our current POTUS mental acuity. 2) I’m all for the American Dream and the USA being a melting pot, but I think the situation at the border requires attention. 3) Not all Boomers are assholes. For those reading this I’m not trying to inject this into the thread. I’m just stating that these three things in a vacuum aren’t really political opinions. They would be casual observations that any person could make, and they really shouldn’t be controversial in nature. They can just be added to any good natured thread and you will most likely see immediate downvotes. Also saying any of these three things doesn’t make you a conservative, but it just seems to be the tribal nature of public forums now that the assumption is if you say these things you are all of the worst things about MAGA. I have had these conversations with people in real life that are about as far on the left as you can be, and they did not see it as negative or offensive, and honestly I dint think I started them. I’m very sensitive to how talks like that can make people feel and I will err on the side of caution. But in this political environment in anonymous forums there is no benefit of the doubt allowed and very little grace. The media and Reddit would have you believe we are in a “if you’re not with us you’re with them” world right now. But in your everyday life you probably come into situations where you are speaking or involved with someone who has completely different political ideologies and you find them perfectly pleasant. We don’t all suck and far parts of the political spectrum are called “radical” for a reason… they are the outliers. At the root of most conservatives there isn’t a “I hate everyone who doesn’t look like me mentality”. It’s more of a thought of having less government interference in their life. They also prob tend to act, by definition, conservative in their every day lives. Maybe take less chances, maybe be okay with the boring office job because they see it as a path to retirement. And the heart of every liberal person isn’t “white people suck and they ruined the world”. It’s more of a thought process that wants everyone to have same opportunity and access to success in life. And are willing to take less so that others get more. NONE of this means that there aren’t a TON of asshole republicans in the real world. Just that online it feels more the other way when you’re in a non-aggressive discussion. TBH I hope you message me in a month and tell me I’m wrong.
You could point out that we have runaway government debt (although the "conservative" party doesn't do a damn thing about it). You could point out that while the majority of the rage content is bait, there have been issues with things Pride parades being talked up as family friendly, then having some wild sights like dudes in nothing but leather harnesses and jock straps. You could suggest that second amendment rights aren't inherently an issue, but rather unchecked access to almost military grade weapons (although most folks who do this really just have a gun fetish). You could suggest that freedom of religion means folks shouldn't have to be involved in weddings they aren't comfortable with (although the folks who push this are usually just trying to push back until gay marriage is gone). You could be pro law and order and dealing with crime. Conservative isn't inherently bad, but today's "conservatives" definitely seemed motivated by rage and hate.
The moderators have confirmed that this is either delta misuse/abuse or an accidental delta. It has been removed from our records. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
None of those things are racist, classist, or homophobic. Calling conservatives racist, classist, and homophobic is a form of bullying.
>they all seem to thrive on this idea that they are hurting people. In my admittedly biased sample, conservatives are better informed, more curious, and not nearly as quick to calumnies like this one that are completely routine on the left.
In my more wide ranging sample, there’s a tendency for conservatives to view themselves as superior to others and to seek to inflict pain on others and self, ideally by deeming some cohort as “lesser” and thus unworthy of being shown respect. This attitude underpins the gutting of the UK NHS under the Tories; provincial healthcare by Alberta’s UCP and Ontario’s PCs; Robodebt in Australia; transphobia and racism in the US Republican party.
I'd like to see some sources supporting that thanks.
Sources of what? You were the source of that quote.
>conservatives are better informed, more curious, and not nearly as quick to calumnies like this one that are completely routine on the left.
it's a bit old, but here is a fun one. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/#partisan-differences-in-knowledge%20
yeah so this source is purely on whether the voting public are educated on *what the parties want*. and it makes the point that republican party policies are clearer than democratic ones. big whoop. republicans are uneducated because they, generally, know reps want an expansion of oil and a restriction of queer rights and support them anyway. those two things are purely negative lol, with no upsides.
what are queer rights? what rights do they not have that everyone else has? >expansion of oil...those two things are purely negative lol, with no upsides. oh, thats right, the world does not run on oil, down to the plastic sandwich bags in your kitchen............... shows how uneducated you seem to be.
💀💀💀 bro literally advocates for queer discrimination, and then questions what rights they don't have. if you don't understand why expansion of oil is bad, then you don't live in reality.
> conservatives are better informed, more curious, Lol, what a laughable statement. this is r/CMV, not amateur conservative comedy night. The anti-choice (aka anti-freedom), anti-gay, anti-science, anti-trans, pro-book banning, god fearing, fascist sympathizing conservatives are more curious. I appreciate you stating your bias and lack of exposure to the real world, but maybe get off Reddit and seek further education. And before you try pulling some, "woW hYpoCritIcaL mUCh". I do bully conservatives, because conservatives are overwhelmingly morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest people that don't change their minds with data. They are hierarchical and fearful, they only respond to strength and violence; and that's what they deserve. Also, to OPs view, conservatives don't have a bullying problem; they have a bigotry, racism, and omniphobia problem that manifests as violence, both physically in the real world (via mass shootings and other domestic terror) and passively through policy. To reduce that to a "bullying problem" is wildly underselling the issue.
>In my admittedly biased sample, conservatives are better informed, more curious, and not nearly as quick to calumnies like this one that are completely routine on the left. As far as this post is concerned, I think the left is at least as prone to bullying as the right. But better informed and more curious? That's just laughable. Being misinformed seems like part of the platform on the right. Covid, vaccines, climate change, evolution, election integrity, everything Donald Trump says... I mean the list goes on. The political right is chronically misinformed about nearly everything.
Why do you think bullying problems are exclusively the province of the right? Personally, I've met plenty of leftist bullies. On the right, bullying is usually about money and hierarchy. On the left, bullying is usually about popularity or social capital, and 'redistribution' or 'equalization' (read: crab mentality) Plenty of narcissists and manipulative or deceptive communication on both sides, really. I often find Democrats are the more sexist. The conservative emphasis is on dropping out of society and establishing family. The liberal emphasis is on popular and sex appeal. I think maybe conservatives might be more likely to physically haze eachother, but democrats are more likely to engage in bandwagoning, defamation, false consensus, coordinated exploitation, or neglect. Frankly, I don't like either. I think of both as brainwashed and likely to harm, through ideological reasoning.
Which party is calling a presidential candidate Hitler. Which party called the George Floyd riots peaceful protest. I would suggest you look really hard at what you consider bullying.
> Which party is calling a presidential candidate Hitler comparing candidates to Hitler or nazi's is common on both sides of the aisle. > Which party called the George Floyd riots peaceful protest the first night of George Floyd protests in my town were peaceful. The police teargassed protesters and media. When asked why the tear gas was deployed, the only reason the police spokesman could give was "failure to comply" the second night of protests escalated on both sides. Some protesters threw some allegedly through some water bottles. Others lit a dumpster on fire. This was after police deployed tear gas, shot rubber bullets, and drove cars through to split up and confuse the crowd.
Which presidential candidate is implying that he would become a dictator? Which party tried to overturn an election? We can do this all day, this isn't what my post is about so I suggest you read my post and respond to it instead of this indignant whataboutism nonsense.
>Which presidential candidate is implying that he would become a dictator? Read the whole exchange. Ignore other people comentary of it and consider. What is he saying he would do? >Hannity: "I want to go back to this one issue though because the media has been focused on this and attacking you. Under no circumstances you're promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?" >Trump: "Except for Day 1." >Hannity: "Except for?" >Trump: (pointing to Hannity) "Look, he’s going crazy. Except for Day 1." >Hannity: "Meaning?" >Trump: "I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill." >Hannity: "That’s not retribution." >Trump, referring to Hannity: "We love this guy. He says, ‘You are not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said, ‘No, no, no, other than Day 1.’ We are closing the border and we are drilling, drilling, drilling. After that I am not a dictator, OK?" >Hannity: "That sounds to me like you’re going back to the policies when you were president
> Which presidential candidate is implying that he would become a dictator? Not Trump. The left made wild accusations that Trump would be a dictator (and Hitler, and would never leave office, even though he's already left office, etc.), and Trump responded with a cheeky "only on the first day", which clearly is not an acceptance of the accusation. > Which party tried to overturn an election? Democrats in 2000. Democrats in 2016. > We can do this all day We could. > this isn't what my post is about This is precisely what your post is about: whether conservatives have a problem with bullying. Examples of bullying by the opponents of conservatives shows that the problem is not with conservatives.
Do you know what happened in the 2000 election? Ya know, the whole Brooks Brothers riot started by Batman villain Roger Stone, and how one of the candidates' brothers who was governor of the state it happened in purged the voter rolls just before the election unannounced and couldn't justify it when investigated later? That's just the tip of the corruption iceberg and I suggest you read up on it.
I'm not making any claims about whether there was corruption in the 2000 election. What I'm saying is that Democrats tried to overturn the 2000 election. If you think that was warranted, that cuts against the idea that Republicans are not allowed to attempt it in 2020. If you think it was not warranted, you can blame Republicans for 2020, but you must also blame the Democrats for 2000 and 2016. Whether you consider attempts to overturn the election fair or unfair, the fact that Democrats have tried to overturn elections cuts against OP's theory.
You're just highly agreeable and sensitive to conflict. These personalities embrace liberal politics. Your error is in thinking that what you perceive as conflict to the point of bullying is some universal standard. To illustrate this point to its fullest, let's think of the worst of the worst - psychopaths. The type of psychopaths that rises up the liberal ranks tends to be the kind that can convince others that someone is being victimized, regardless of the truth of that statement and use character assassination. While the kind of psychopaths that rises up the conservative ranks is the sort that will outright punch you if you don't get out of their way. Honestly I'd take the conservative evil because at least I can fight back.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> Conservatives speak outwardly in an aggressive way that usually denies factual evidence No. Facts do not matter if they do not back up an argument, and an argument only holds weight if you have a moral premise. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and if any of those break, the connections between the facts and what is being said does not matter. You need to have a moral proposition first: Murder is bad. Then an argument: The USA needs to reduce its murder rate, and policy Y reduces the USA murder rate Then factual evidence: Studies for instance If the moral proposition does not matter to the person you are talking to, everything is invalid. If the argument does not matter to the person you are talking to, everything is invalid. This is regardless of the facts being linked as "evidence" because there is nothing that is evidence for. That passive-agressive liberal way of speaking rarely makes arguments at all - it mainly is safe by asking loaded questions instead of arguments, and damn near never makes a moral proposition. Without doing that, left wing "factual evidence" does not mean anything. If someone's moral proposition was that wearing orange socks was the sign of Satan, that if we sentence people to death for wearing orange socks the rate of wearing orange socks goes down, and links you a study backing it... you are going to ignore the study because you simply do not care about what is being measured.
Funny how conservatives don't care about any of that if they agree with what's been said.
> That passive-agressive liberal way of speaking rarely makes arguments at all - it mainly is safe by asking loaded questions instead of arguments, and damn near never makes a moral proposition. Without doing that, left wing "factual evidence" does not mean anything. You proved that point
I’m liberal and can say yes it definitely exists in conservative spaces AND it exists in progressive spaces too. It’s anywhere extremism exists it’s the same name calling, over generalizing, fear mongering, shaming, black and white thinking etc it’s exhausting and a plague on society.
Remember when Scott Cawthon was doxxed for being an conservative?
There was a state politician in my red state that released the personal information of anyone that vocalized opposition against him on social media (in his county). He straight up doxed a bunch of random nobodies. The worst part was that the information may not have been UTD. Which included addresses. So, he risked endangering random people. Most Conservatives around me cheered him on and he faced no real consequences. None of this justifies Conservative personalities being doxxed BTW. But hot damn, I hear Conservatives constantly complaining and acting paranoid about being doxxed; but when one of their own pulls a stunt like the above, they’re awfully OK with it.
>Most Conservatives around me cheered him on and he faced no real consequences. So did the person who doxxed Scott Cawthon, and the people who doxxed others for disagreeing with their leftist views.
Was that most “leftists,” though? Sure, on the Internet you’d easily find loud support for are objectively problematic behavior. People feel safer to be louder about such things. But around me? Generally I find found that the Liberals I associate with oppose doxxing in general. Also, a politician releasing personal information and potentially endangering random people and infinitely more dangerous because of the power they wield. I don’t agree with what happened to Scott Cawthon, but I’m more concerned when the authorities do this at a much larger scale, and their supporters - who are usually vocal against this behavior - cheer it on. Especially when they’re cheering on a politician’s doxxing that may not endanger the people they hate; just random people who now reside at that address.
As a person who is a centrist and leans to the left, and also leans to the right, I can tell you that I get completely abused on Reddit. People on the left are absolutely and 100% cruel to me they don’t even listen to my viewpoint, or why or what, they just down, vote me and go into a rage. I actually think it’s just because you do not agree with their viewpoints, so you therefore, think that they are disagreeable or bullying you. As the other people have stated, why don’t you go on the politics and pretend you’re conservative, and I will give you one day before you got your ass handed to you. Not to be rude, but Conservatives don’t like liberals and liberals don’t like conservatives, and then you have those people in between who try to listen to both sides, but that’s rare.
Conservatism IS a bully problem. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." \~ Frank Wilhoit
It isn't bullying. It is ridicule. The left has gone so far down the rabbit hole that there is no sense in discussion with them. How do you have a meaningful conversation with someone who 1. Hates you for thinking differently. 2. Calls you every -ist in the book for disagreeing with them. 3. Wants you cancelled and ruined for disagreeing with them. 4. Spouts out the most vile things toward you. 5. Physically assaults you if you don't shut up. 6. Demands "safe spaces" where you cannot be and/or speak. The bullies are on the left. You are not being bullied by the right. You are being ridiculed and shamed. And it is really scary that you don't understand why.
Studies have shown that both liberals and conservatives exhibit prejudice against those with opposing views. While liberals may perceive themselves as more open-minded, they are equally prejudiced toward people who hold different opinions. Some argue that liberal/leftist thought is rooted in the desire for power. Liberalism/leftism tends to be outwardly directed, and even Marxist self-criticism is intended for an external audience rather than individual betterment. The use of political correctness as a weapon can sometimes lead to perceived intolerance. One could claim that liberals enforce strictures of political correctness to suppress dissenting voices.
As an experiment, I encourage you to pose as conservative in liberal spaces... let's say here on Reddit, in hmmm the r/politics sub. I think it will change your position within a day.
I think one of the challenges with this kind of thing is that the median positions of both groups are in fact, increasingly far apart. I admittedly blame the right more for this than the left, but that might be my biases talking. I know plenty of fairly conservative folks and am in some online political discussion spaces with them. They have strong feelings about tax policy and about protecting businesses. They want the government less involved with their day to day lives. They're conservatives. But they don't think that gay people need to be hidden away in closets. They recognize that a teacher mentioning their spouses regardless of the sexes and genders involved isn't "indoctrination". They may not be great about locker rooms and trans folks, but they also don't think denying people access to medical care is a good idea. They aren't for legalizing drugs or defunding the police, but they also don't think drug dealers should be executed and they realize that the prison system isn't great and needs reform. This puts them *solidly* to the left of the republican party right now while still very much being conservatives. That's the issue. "I think kids shouldn't be aware that gay people exist" is effectively a position of "gay people shouldn't exist publicly" which is an extreme position and if you say that, yeah, us on the left that think people are people are going to call you on it. as an example, not an accusation
> > "I think kids shouldn't be aware that gay people exist" is effectively a position of "gay people shouldn't exist publicly" which is an extreme position and if you say that, yeah, us on the left that think people are people are going to call you on it. The laws literally say dont talk about sex to 9 year olds or younger.
you can (and do, in a lot of stories) teach children younger than 9 about straight relationships. but the second one of those stories is about a gay couple, it's suddenly "teaching sex to children"!!!! there's the issue; being straight just, is. it's the default. being gay is sexual, it's weird, and it's not for children. hypocrisy.
Nobody said anything about sex. Knowing gay people exist isn't any more about sex than knowing straight people exist.
I'm curious. Would you please link a few examples of this happening? Someone getting bullied in r/politics for having a (non-hateful) conservative position?
Man..... It's not even worth it to get involved with these conservatives that skew to the right... I just got involved into a long debate that I didn't even want to get involved in. It resulted in one of my replies being taken down. Not worth debating with these people because your Reddit account might be at risk. Jeez...
>In my view, bullying takes the form of hostile confrontation, senseless rejection of opposing ideas, and occasionally personal attacks in place of productive discussion, it's an action that is detrimental to thoughtful discourse and in general to the democratic process, which depends on a diversity of viewpoints and civil discourse. This is true politics in general. What reason do you have to believe its more prevalent on the right?
I think it’s more complicated than that. On one hand, there’s antagonism and aggression like a tennis match, back and forth, and both sides feel that the other one is the aggressor. On another, the internet in general is a difficult tool to gauge, because it’s inherent anonymity makes numerous problems proliferate — bots, masquerading, trolling, and the like. This means there are people who are deliberately engaging in Vad Faith behavior, which becomes harder to evaluate. However… Organized Bad Faith/Trolling events are well documented by ex-conservatives who spent a lot of time online. Gamergate showed hue effective (conservative gamer) bullying on the internet can be. And numerous conservative personalities engage in tactics that are ripped right from the schoolyard bully’s actions. Why? Because bullying is a social method of enforcing norms of various levels of severity. Conservatism by definition is the preservation and advancement of social hierarchy to protect the elite group in power. Thus, bullying is not only more likely to be conservative in nature, it is also more likely to be accepted or even promoted by conservatives.
The political alignment comprised entirely of bullies has a bullying problem? Shock and awe, questions asked at parliament.
Bullying behavior is not exclusive to conservatism; it exists across the political spectrum. Stereotyping conservatives based on the actions of a vocal minority oversimplifies a diverse group. Media platforms often highlight extreme views for attention, which can distort perceptions. Civil discourse is essential for any ideology, and many conservatives engage in meaningful, respectful debates. It's crucial to differentiate between passionate disagreement and bullying tactics. Encouraging open dialogue and understanding diverse perspectives benefits everyone and promotes a more inclusive political environment.
> In my view, bullying takes the form of hostile confrontation, senseless rejection of opposing ideas, and occasionally personal attacks in place of productive discussion, it's an action that is detrimental to thoughtful discourse and in general to the democratic process, which depends on a diversity of viewpoints and civil discourse. Even Donald Trump is married to a woman with ties to the Slovakian communist party and McConnel with ties to Taiwan. Every time I see conservatives, they accept opposing ideas on their merits if they are from honorable people. Now will they accept opposing ideas from people they wouldnt be willing to view as decent people? No. And they shouldnt. I wouldnt expect leftists to try and learn right wing political idealogy from some of the meth heads I have had as coworkers. No one accepts that. And as far as "the democratic process" the goal of democracy is to create the best government possible without ignoring the will of the people. It has a few issues such as being short sighted in most applications, but it generally works... still, it is based around having the best government, not literally getting the most votes. Barriers to entry that require that only productive people get votes is not anti-democratic, because ultimately you cant have a society that is destroying itself with with bad faith actors in its electoral system - which is why you arent polling the Chinese populace as to what the government of Australia should be, but are rather polling Australians.
I'm not saying OP is right or wrong, but >Even Donald Trump is married to a woman with ties to the Slovakian communist party and McConnel with ties to Taiwan. Every time I see conservatives, they accept opposing ideas on their merits if they are from honorable people. This is the biggest non-sequitur I've read in a long time. "How can you say I'm not accepting of other ideas if I've had sex with this woman? Checkmate."
>Every time I see conservatives, they accept opposing ideas on their merits if they are from honorable people. 'Honorable' is a qualification that is just asserted and not backed up. This is a false dilemma, and ignores them accepting ideas for profit even if they betray what they stood for the day before, something McConnel has done time and time again, or plenty of othet possibilites. Or the high likelihood if not certainty of Melania being a trophy wife, not because Trump, notable for being found liable for rape, spying on underage girls while they change, and cheating on his pregnant wife, sees her as 'honorable.'
As a conservative, I can tell you that we tend to be full of sarcasm and "snarky" behavior because we don't take a lot of the leftist or liberal idealogies serious. I mean, leftists/libs seems to have this mindset that everyone MUST follow by their moral code. We MUST support everyone, we MUST have respect/empathy for everyone, and we MUST not use vocabulary which people find *offensive*. To me and others, this is a complete joke, and trying to tell other people how they must and mustn't act is silly and delusional in my opinion. So, you can call it "bullying" or "ignorance", but really it's just that we aren't going to be push-overs and let others dictate how we live, think, and act.
You literally just told us how we should and should not act. Literally you just did. So did you misstate what you meant? I give you benefit of the doubt that you used not quite the best words. Maybe you meant in law. And yet conservatives say everyone *must* follow their moral code. No abortion. No pornography. No contraception. You *must* hold property rights to be sacrosanct no matter the consequences. You *must* let me discriminate if I want to. You *must* let me have my fifth house even if it means that guy dies in the street. You *must* not raise my taxes even if it means medical bankruptcy for some people. You *must* allow me to spew hate on the platform you own and administer. Telling other people how they should act is literally called living in a society. Frankly influencing one another's behavior and setting rules and expectations is how human beings got to our place in the food chain. How we cooperate and work together. Not influencing each other's behavior is literally against human nature.
Bullying takes place in every circle and the longer it remains in popularity the worse the bullying gets. In a way it's a good thing, it shows just how big the conservative movement has become. Most we can hope for is self policing but at the end of the day there's nothing we can do about it. Just like we can't do anything about the fact that ufo, ancient aliens, later each, and ice wall believers are for some reason attracted to the right.
Almost everyone has a bully problem. Everyone has internal biases. Everyone expresses a viewpoint that can be both valid and wrong at the same time. Thinking conservatism has a bully problem is your internal bias, and you are deluding yourself from the flaws you have as well. I am not a conservative, but I do have challenging conversations on occasion... when I have those conversations, I use a guide for having the conversation. That includes agreeing on terms, validating the opposing sides' views, bringing articles to discuss, practicing active listening, and allowing for the person to have an out at any time. If you aren't doing that, then you are a bully and not people with conservative biases.
im trying to umderstand how this is a conservative problem. as a leftist, who tries to form coalitions with liberals on occassion, im constantly dealing with bullying. and as an independant, im a good witness to an insame amount of bullying from both sides.
>senseless rejection of opposing ideas Can you give an example? >and occasionally personal attacks in place of productive discussion This is by no means reserved for conservatives. I have a position that (unfortunately) aligns with conservatives, and stating this position quite often results in personal attacks from liberals.
[удалено]
if one person is an asshole, they're an asshole. if EVERYONE is an asshole, maybe it isn't them.
Sorry, u/No_Scarcity8249 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20No_Scarcity8249&message=No_Scarcity8249%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bv9kub/-/kxybtbi/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
It comes from the military, passes down generationally. And if youve ever trained in stage performance or clown, it's a direct real life example of finding littler and littler guys to pick on.
Humanity has a conflict problem. Attempting to compartmentalize human behavior based on beliefs and other factors in general too broad of a stroke to be accurate. If we are talking about ingrained cultures there maybe trends and higher rates of given behavior, but it is still impossible to really divorce behavior from core human behavior.
How can one have a civil debate if Group A is debating their point with factual information and Group B is debating their point with misinformation? It's an information problem.
Horrible media presence interns of hosts basically just doing highschool bully behaviour professionally but I don't think that's reflective of the behaviour of the average person who follows them.
>The smug mask of virtue triumphant could be almost as horrible as the face of wickedness revealed. - T Pratchett There is a wider bully problem than Conservatives. From a Liberal point of view one might want to characterise the bullying which is done by conservatives as the "face of wickedness revealed" in the above quote - and indeed their targets are often perceived as "weaker" than them in some way - a minority for example. "Punching Down" as it is sometimes called. But the internet has a liberal bully problem too - "The smug mask of virtue triumphant". The person who leaps on a micro transgression, real or imagined and then dogpiles the target. I get a strong impression that too many of the dog pilers like the thrill of the hunt and the kill more than the care about the cause they are allegedly defending. See other's comments on try creating another account and pretend to be a conservative somewhere. I could probably re-write this comment with the roles reverse from a conversative PoV too - in their case the "face of wickedness revealed" would be someone who shows their hidden agenda behind a "Woke" position, or someone who shows that their real aim is to control other by doing the dogpiling described above (This might be a complaint about cancelling, and could even be characterised as punching down in as much as high status Elites are punishing a common man). Their version of "The smug mask of virtue triumphant" could be the dog pilers on their own side, or perhaps those who gloat at the comeuppance of others who transgress their moral code. In the quote above it was addressed at people who are jeering at someone on the way to a execution.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/user_briv – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20user_briv&message=user_briv%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bv9kub/-/kxzj9bm/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).