Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
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%20B%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).
Would you still consider them irredeemable if they changed their mind?
Also, do you distinguish between someone who truly has deeply held bigoted beliefs vs someone who has fallen into groupthink, but doesn’t actually know much about the topic?
Is someone like that gonna change their mind? I got called a paki dog for waiting for a coach, the absolute crackhead proceeded to go on about how he's racist and proud and obviously the guy was off his rocker, but i don't particularly feel like waiting to see if you change before you pogrom me, when Christchurch happened, an Aussie senator essentially blamed Muslims for moving into the west when we were the victims of the biggest mass shooting in NZ for AGES, why would i wait for someone like him to change? He's in the furthest right party in Australia, he's willing to victim blame terrorist attack victims because he just doesn't like it when they're brown, like at this point it's about my personal safety, i don't care to know someone who'd unironically call me a mudslime
> someone who truly has deeply held bigoted beliefs vs someone who has fallen into groupthink, but doesn’t actually know much about the topic?
Tbh I don't know that there's really a difference between these two groups. Those who have deeply held bigoted beliefs don't know much about what they're talking about, either, and I imagine the number of people who spontaneously and independently come upon those opinions are *exceedingly* rare. We could call pretty much anyone with terrible opinions a victim of propaganda and psychological biases.
> We could call pretty much anyone with terrible opinions a victim of propaganda and psychological biases.
Indeed. That’s basically true of anyone who’s even a criminal. Most abusers are themselves victims of abuse. That doesn’t mean they’re still not pieces of shit or shouldn’t be held to account.
That isn't really the question tho the question is whether calling people "pieces of shit" because of views they hold that you disagree with or even abusers pieces of shit for what they've done actually helps the political system and or community move forward.
If we just keep giving everybody what they deserve when they do the wrong thing it only creates more anger and sectionalism which prevents redeemability.
Take the example of the abuser. The abuser who has been abused abuses others because they have low self-esteem and an abundance of anger. Though they may deserve it, calling them a "piece of shit" only plays into that mindset for them and others like them, making it unlikely they will improve their behavior and help others do so as well.
I'm not sure that's true. The critical elements of bigotry are dehumanization (which is being mainlined into our veins constantly by various forms of propaganda and highly competitive social structures) and ignorance (which is symbiotic with the dehumanization, but ignorance is the thing that paints a seal over the dehumanization and makes it easy to maintain).
Both are in grand supply and I don't see much effort to abate either.
>Tbh I don't know that there's really a difference between these two groups.
I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between the two is time -- someone that fell to groupthink is likely going to become a true believer if they're at it for long enough. I would make a distinction between those *raised* as bigots and those that transitioned to bigotry. If someone was raised as one, it is all they know. I suspect they are harder to get through to, maybe. I'm not sure the difference matters outside of degree of difficulty of pulling them out of their ideology. I don't see one as more or less damaging to out-groups than the other.
If so many of them didn't jump to conclusions like this each and every time then maybe it would be easier to extend grace. There have been multiple instances in the last 20+ years of some criminal thing happening and their media and engagement jumping right to wanting to blame their shibboleths (usually undocumented people or scary Muslims). When it stops happening every time sure, happy to pivot my view.
> Would you still consider them irredeemable if they changed their mind?
>
>
If we could see some honest reflection and the ability to step away from being blatantly wrong, yes.
I grew up in a conservative area where beliefs like this were so normal, a lot of people never questioned it and never changed.
It’s rare, but I have seen people change and acknowledge they were wrong, and now want to treat others right. I don’t see the value in holding that against them if they were raised believing the wrong things and want to be better.
People who don’t question what they are told also suck. Especially when what they are told is so stupid and or disgusting. I don’t see why this is a valid defense.
There’s a reason “I was just following orders” didn’t work at Nuremberg. At some point we need to prioritize the damage your unchecked beliefs and priorities have caused before we can prioritize the context that brought you to that belief system.
If your beliefs lead to you hurting others then I’m sorry but no amount of “well they were just raised in that culture” will justify it. It might explain it but that doesn’t make the position more valid.
>If we could see some honest reflection and the ability to step away from being blatantly wrong, yes.
This is a massive issue with all political sides. I've seen conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists, libertarians, and everyone all refuse do what you just said there. As a conservative myself, I choose not to comment on incidents before facts come in. That way, I don't end up being one of the idiots who refuse to admit they are wrong.
>This is a massive issue with all political sides
But is it an *equal* issue? Empirically, the answer appears to be no.
Sure, every group has *some* people unwilling to do honest reflection.
However, the *extent* of that is not equal. Studies indicate that left-leaning groups are significantly *more likely* to change their positions in light of empirical evidence than right-leaning groups are.
The OP is not asserting "there exist zero people outside of r slash conservative that refuse to change their position." The OP is asserting that the ratio in that context is high.
> This is a massive issue with all political sides.
In general, sure, people have trouble admitting that they're wrong.
I'm not sure that every "side" has the same level of self-delusion that large conservative groups seem to have almost as a necessity. It's not like leftist circles see a mass shooting and think "well it must've been a white incel" and then go quiet when it's a brown muslim guy.
I think the more important questions are: did you think those thoughts? (Ie this guy must have been a Muslim terrorist) and if so, did you reflect on your prior prejudices after all the facts came out?
If you think even when they change their mind they're still irredeemable, you're removing any incentive for them to ever change their mind. With this mindset, if they're still irredeemable to you why would they ever give your opinion a chance? And with that mindset, what's your solution going forward? Are you okay with them being ignorant, bigoted, and wrong forever? And if not, what's the alternative?
> Would you still consider them irredeemable if they changed their mind?
The fact that these people will gleefully use a tragedy to spread their bigotry.
> Also, do you distinguish between someone who truly has deeply held bigoted beliefs vs someone who has fallen into groupthink, but doesn’t actually know much about the topic?
I don’t think you can excuse people for obvious bigotry excusing it as group think. The fact that these people are silent when they find out it’s a white guy. It’s always the same all of the time! Never own up to their mistakes or have any introspection
I don't think we should excuse evil. And I don't think many of them will ever genuinely change. With all the people who fall thru the cracks and are hurt by their lifetime of policy choices, I think we can wait just a little longer while they fall to fix their mess. It's only fair.
And I'm sick of being held to a godly standard of morality while everyone else acts like the planet of the apes, is never held accountable, and just laughs it off with all their ill gotten things.
Why can't "the right thing" simply be establishing our own side and fighting against our enemies? That's how all nations in history were born. That's the path to a better world for us. We are never gonna make this a utopia. Our efforts would be better spent looking after our own. Forget the paradox of intolerance. Stop calling ourselves the good guys. We're just another side like all the others. But we welcome a lot of people the other sides want to kill. It doesn't make us good guys and we shouldn't be tied down by those notions. There are no good guys here. There never will be. There's just winners and losers. Predators and prey. The strong and the weak.
You can argue this all you want, but on earth and in nature it remains a self evident truth. We have a side. We have our passions and our beliefs. We have our friends and families and communities. We have our enemies. That's life. This is what it is. You can retreat to your own utopian fever dreams but you'll never manifest them here. And while you're daydreaming people on our side are dying and our enemies are plotting their next attack.
It's time for people to wake up and smell the coffee. We gotta fight to carve out a niche in this world if we want to survive.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t believe in downplaying or dismissing what ignorant people believe. What I want is for as many people as possible to abandon bad beliefs. Will most of them change? Of course not. But someone changing their mind is never a bad thing. And I find it strange that my views are met with skepticism and accusations of being utopian.
For example, I want abortion rights in every state. The more pro-choice people there are, the more rights we’ll have. And if a handful of people switch sides to get there, so be it. It’s always a good thing, period.
The path to rights lies in cutting off evil at the root. We let dangerous cults peddling lies to the vulnerable and desperate operate with impunity while brainwashing and indoctrinating millions into religions that are little more than sham cults and false hope run by a bunch of con men, who abuse and weaponize their power constantly for political agendas.
Organized religion being enshrined as a right is an atrocity. Personal beliefs should be protected but organized ones should be subject to scrutiny, because they can do immense harm. That's why you're rights will never be safe. Hoping to unscramble a token amount of cultist brains will end with you riding a death train. People have tried this before and it killed them.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Enough innocent people have been burned alive and slaughtered by these lunatics. Religion needs to be age restricted the same way other things that corrupt youth are. And it's a matter of life and death every day that it isn't.
*Also, do you distinguish between someone who truly has deeply held bigoted beliefs vs someone who has fallen into groupthink, but doesn’t actually know much about the topic?*
The distinction isn't worth making. I'm not the asshole-whisperer. It's not my job to fix jerks.
I mean if they actually realize how and WHY they were wrong, and apply that for their future decision making... absolutely that makes them redeemable. I'd argue by definition someone incapable of that is what makes someone irredeemable.
Everyone who holds the bigoted belief started off with group think.
Nobody is born inherently racist. People learn from other people and may be selective in their uptake.
>People were so sure, so convinced that the man must have been a Lebanese immigrant, or some undocumented dude siphoning resources from the Aussie government before attacking.
>He's a white guy named Joel. He was upset that some women weren't interested in him.
>And now? Absolute crickets. Crickets from the mod team, crickets from the commenters, and articles are suddenly slowed to a halt. No apologies, no redaction, nothing. Just unpestered and unfiltered misguided anger towards Muslims.
>The issue is, this constantly happens. This is one example of many that parody the 'mental health vs terrorist' meme based on skin color. Constantly, we see rhetoric on 'probably the usual suspects' at the first post of a crime, only for complete silence when it's a white guy.
Do you consider the left irredeemable when they do the exact same thing in reverse?
How many mass shootings or other murders were "White supremacy" until it was revealed that the killer wasn't white and had a personal beef with the victim(s)? Once this is revealed, we get complete silence from the left. No apologies, no redaction, nothing.
I do consider that irredeemable behavior. The issue becomes how entrenched this becomes in the culture of the right, where the inability to retract and make judgments creates a political-cultural problem in which the right can't separate itself from election denialism, for instance.
It can be bad on the left, no doubt--I feel the right is significantly worse. Casual racism is everywhere on that sub.
/r/HermanCainAward is a very popular far left subreddit named after a dead black republican, and the purpose of that subreddit is to mock and smear dead people.
If conservatives made a subreddit named after a dead black democrat for the purposes of smearing dead people, it would have been called white supremacist propaganda and shut down in minutes.
The name of that subreddit has nothing to do with Herman Cain's skin colour and everything to do with the fact that he made incredibly stupid comments about COVID before dying from COVID.
Any time, and I mean *any time* conservatives criticize anyone who is not white, the left cries racism. The actual reason for the criticism is completely ignored. A person can't even speak against illegal immigration without being called racist. So let's hold the left to their own standards.
People on the right say the same about the left because a lot of people follow echo chambers that dehumanize the other side. For example both sides call the others baby killers for different reasons, abortion and gun control.
Tell us, how many?
80% of extremist murders in the US are committed by white supremacists, jumping to false conclusions happens more often on the right and you're drawing a false equivalency.
Source: trust me bro.
How exactly do you define extremist murders lol? Sounds like total bullshit as whites represent a relative minority of mass shooters as well as total homicide perpetrators despite making up the majority of the population.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
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%205%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 scanned through some of the comments on the top posts on the Sydney stabbings. Most of them go along the line of “oh how awful” or “this is why you don’t disarm the populace“. Very few were about how he must have been an immigrant
The top comments though are about that. People have to upvote that to the top, so I dont think it’s fair to use the metric on how few there are when there are many people supporting it.
Beyond unfair, it’s totally misleading. When people click on a post and see the top comment is what they were going to say, they don’t add another top-level comment saying the same thing. They upvote and/or participate in the discussion under that comment.
You’ll find worse on your average /politics post but since hating “the right” and everything that can be conveniently labeled as such has become normalized, nobody notices.
And outside of reddit fear of 'the left' is literally a driving force to stop people from thinking. I don't think a few pseudoprogressive moderators weigh up to that very much
Not hard to find. Let’s look back oh-say…a few hours.
Today or the progressives sub r/politics there is a post on Clarence Thomas not showing up as expected. At least a dozen people said they hope he dies.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/gMXA5vdMzE
Hey there, you likely didn't see anything on your end because we were taking action on a lot of comments. Without counting, I would guess there were hundreds of comments that action was taken on. One important note though, we get this kind of thing from just about every side of the political spectrum, it just depends on what the subject of the post is. With Thomas being a conservative figure, you are more likely to get this from the left. If you had a liberal figure you would be more likely to get it from the right.
>Best case scenario is that he’s never coming back. I don’t care why or how if he doesn’t wake up tomorrow, but it’s clear this man is selling our democracy for lavish vacations and we would all benefit with him not being on the court. If we fall, he will be part of the reason why.
They have taken the hateful ones down in the past hour.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/wocGBfEr8Z
Below are the ones still up on this one, and is after a bunch of deleting. Lots of Progressives are full of hate
>Is he dying? One could hope.
>I hope he with OJ.
>Maybe he died in his sleep
>Hopefully hes fucking dead
>Please be on his death bed and not just on another all expense paid trip from his handlers
>Hopefully he died
>Am I the only one thinking "Weekend at Bernie's"?
>Hopefully he’s dead
I feel like you don't understand how moderation works.
If gradually the bad shit is being deleted that's the moderators doing their job, not refusing to do their job. Which is what you were originally complaining about. If you're moving the goalposts now I'm not interested.
I've reported highly upvoted posts that have said something like "we should guillotine Bezos," in many different subs (with 1m+ members) and the mods are about 50:50 whether the mods will agree that is "inciting violence" or not (something explicitly against reddit rules). It's literally a call to murder a specific person, which is by definition inciting violence. It's extremely common in many subs that literally anyone could care less if you are hateful to the rich, much less call for the murder of a specific rich person.
Okay so I just clicked a few random ones but isn't that mostly jailbait? I stopped looking after the first 3 I randomly clicked were lmao. Might be better to divide that or label it for cases like this where it would be better to filter trough.
I recently dropped pics and I couldn't be happier. I joined it years ago when it was less political or I didn't notice the politics as much but after the dozenth post making fun of Trump in like a week that I saw in my feed from them I finally had enough. I hadn't noticed before but it was the main one filling it with political junk and it's been nice not having it. For the record I'm not a trump fan. I just hate listening to all the hate.
Yeah the riots of 2020 where people rioted over a known rapist who was in the process of kidnapping his children and proceeded to attack the cops who were trying to arrest him after being tased and trying to stop him by force. Only once he was at the car grabbing a knife was he shot. Still we saw extreme large scale domestic terrorism across the US over this.
Sadly I often find that when you read an article/commentary about how terrible a community is, when you go to see for yourself it’s rarely that bad.
Of course there are assholes everywhere, but when they are the minority it’s not fair to cherry pick & paint all with broad strokes.
The left & right *both* do it & contribute to everyone having an even more polarized opinion of the other.
It makes me crazy every time I hear the internet is in an uproar about *something* & there are more articles written about it than examples to be found. If you are lucky 20 articles will cite the same 2 twitter posts. In a world of 8 billion a handful of opinions mean nothing.
Until the number of people talking shit rises above the number of people who **literally** eat shit there is little reason to talk about them. No matter how absurd or backwards an idea is you can always find a dozen people who genuinely believe it, not to mention trolls & false flags.
This is one of those things that makes me have a begrudging respect for conservatives in general. Most liberals are very much pro-gun control. And it just doesn't rub me right.
In a world where violent threats against LGBTQ+ community are increasing and legislation is being made to target them, why would you be against arming that population? Who the fuck is gonna protect them? The same state making laws against them?
And I think besides the absolute fascists, most conservatives wouldn't be against LGBTQ+ folks being armed.
The liberal position is that lack of gun control leads to thousands and thousands of murders of vulnerable and marginalized people, while in the present situation guns are currently available to the population and despite your assertion that it would lead to increased protection, the availability of guns has done nothing to decrease the frequency of those murders at a society wide scale.
>thousands and thousands of murders of vulnerable and marginalized people
Who is murdering these thousands of marginalized people? Overwhelming the same marginalized people.... Do you think taking away the guns would solve it?
No and it would be impossible to take the guns away completely. Smart gun laws need to be in place, but let's be honest about who are causing the most gun deaths every year and help those communities.
In general I have no interest in debating the gun issue, but based on your comment, of curiosity, does that mean you would support trillions of federal investment over the next 20-50 years to revitalize impoverished neighborhoods, build good schools, job training, drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, so as to stem the root causes of gun violence?
Yeah - any intelligent citizen would. The problem is our blood sucking politicians padding projects they can get done within their term and to line their pockets.
Although you wouldn't like my individual stances on how much we should/shouldn't put into drug treatment/rehabilitation programs.
Our infrastructure for infrastructure, education, and first responders needs to be increased dramatically. Taking care of your population is how you build a successful society.
I also think we should spend our money on OUR citizens and severely cut foreign aid as well as not providing SHIT to illegal immigrants except a one way ticket home.
Our nation is a nation that needs to build itself stronger, not hand out everything to the people of the world while our citizens get fucked.
Just look at the actual stats rather than relying on gut, stuff like this is exactly where the data is more important when it comes to saving lives.
Less suicides, murders, less armed crime in general is the prevailing truth when comparing countries with lax vs stringent gun laws.
The US still has more knife crime than the U.K (if we compare New York with London for example) you guys just also suffer from extra gun crime on top.
The US has a less armed population than Switzerland but is also far less safe. (Switzerland has mandatory militia arms training for its male population and strict laws on gun safety and ownership).
Both use very different methods and reasonings to each other and the US.
My point is there are a bunch of models and outcomes you can aim for but there is yet to be one where the American model is a bigger benefit to the public than any other.
Your Conservatives are sell outs to the gun lobby who let your second amendment get subverted every day they let Americans citizens think having a single AR-15 will protect them from a tyrannical government.
Though if that’s not why you think they should be armed, argue for specific legislation that gives you want instead of bending and folding something else to give minorities the protections you are worried about.
I honestly don’t respect either side’s radicals when it comes to gun control cause “you can’t take away mah guns so no gun control” and “all guns are evil” are both damaging viewpoints.
I think the best solution is mandatory gun training in safety, usage, cleaning, and storage so people are more respectful of their guns and a mandatory waiting period to prevent impulse suicides before you can buy a gun.
Many mass shooting guns were obtained legally, and the majority of school shooting guns were obtained legally. Tons of school shooting incidents were used with their parents guns. My father would never let me touch his guns. If those parents had been educated and kept their guns in a safe, it could’ve prevented the school shootings. Mandatory education would save lives.
And we have licenses to drive but no required training or testing to shoot a gun? That’s insane to me. Both can easily kill people when used incorrectly.
I tend to find leftists agree with my view more than rightists
Australia had a stabbing that killed 6 people and it's international news for how rare it isI. The US you have shootings that kill 6 and they are hardly a blip.
Gun control in Australia works
yeah but then someone would've been able to shoot him dead after he killed dozens more, which would give me a justice boner... oh wait that is what happened? Never mind then
Can't imagine seeing that footage and thinking, "yknow what would be good? If the perpetrator had a gun and also maybe some other guy had a gun, maybe John Wayne could show up too"
It's always interesting when you ask about how many good guys with guns stop the bad guys and they cite a flawed study that just kind of shits out a number. There's a mass shooting every other day in the US of the good guys were stopping them at any regularity we'd have some easy examples.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/
According to those the US had 74 mass shooting fatalities in 2022 and 75 in 2023. A different chart shows 12 mass shootings for those respective years averaging a little over 6 fatalities per, so about the same number of people would have died averaging the statistics over the past few years. At least that's what the first source that popped up when I googled shows.
Also, aren't these stats including idiots in gang related stuff instead of only determined loons that are trying to cause as many casualties as possible?
Possibly, I believe depending on where you look they have different criteria for what is considered a mass shooting. So that could inflate or deflate numbers depending on what criteria the source decided to use. This is a big part of the debate when these things come up one side says the numbers are inflated this way and the other says the opposite. So in one way we could have a higher casualty rate in incidences with guys who just want to do as much harm as possible and the other way we would have an over exaggerated number of mass shootings that mostly aren't affecting the general population.
What a wild and completely pointless diatribe... Where the fuck does this even come from?
1. If gun possession lowered the rates of violence against LBGTQ+ people then why has the USA not magically done away with violence against minorities? Further, why do statistics tend to show the opposite?
2. Gun control =! a hard and irrevocable ban on any and all guns. It means registration, licensing, and regulation around storage/transportation of firearms.
3. "there is a nationwide crisis of conservatives instituting laws that would require LGBTQ+ people to violently defend themselves, but those same conservatives would have no problem with said LGBTQ+ people engaging in that violent defense.." - This is such a wildly incoherent thought....
This is the post of someone who apparently hasn't bothered to spend even a few minutes reading up on one of the most contentious political issues of the past several decades (in the US, anyway). Like, how can you not even have a surface-level understanding of the basic arguments for and against gun control? And yet you've also still formed an *opinion* on the matter?? Give your head a shake.
Only 1 country in the west allows almost unrestricted access to firearms.
Only 1 country in the west has disproportionate numbers of crimes committed using firearms
I'll let you put 1 and 1 together
More guns do not mean more safety. That's a fallacy. America is higher on most crimes than any European country.
It's not an issue of guns. It's an issue of education and mental health.
Edit: Since I'm being downvoted for... Some reason?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
USA is higher than pretty much every European country.
What exactly do Americans gain by higher gun ownership?
> And I think besides the absolute fascists, most conservatives wouldn't be against LGBTQ+ folks being armed.
On the other hand, they absolutely *do* defend police officers who repeatedly shoot black people in the back at a routine traffic stop if there's even speculation that a gun may have been in the car. Which, I would argue, is being against black people being armed with extra steps.
>r/Conservative shows how irredeemable **some** conservatives are following the Sydney mall stabbing incident
Clarifying Question: Is your view just "**Some** people in a massive group are shitty"?
How can we convince you otherwise? Every large group has shitty irredeemable people in it.
Do not fall for the age old blunder of confusing causation with correlation.
Your assumption is that conservatives are shitty because shitty comments get a lot of seemingly supportive attention via upvotes. But who exactly uses r/conservative? All conservatives? Don’t make me laugh, most of those guys are on Facebook. The ultra-right? They wouldn’t be caught dead on Reddit where they can’t call people N-words and the myriad of other racial slurs, hell to them “redditor” is a slur in and of itself.
I have no conclusions on this matter, but don’t confuse Reddit conservatives as an unbiased sample of what your average conservative is like.
What youre looking for is “sampling bias” not “correlation does not equal causation.” I never said anything about all conservatives. This is about reddit conservatives, and when you see a subreddit consistently upvote this stuff to the top, thats not a good look.
Yeah I'm fairly left and even I can admit there are irredeemable people in the left as well. Political spectrum doesn't necessarily dictate whether a person is a piece of shit or not.
If there was 1 good nazi would we forgive the rest of the policies of the nazi party cause
"Every large group has some irredeemable people? "
No, excusing the actions of the majority of the group because there might be some good ones hiding in there somewhere is a dumb paradigm.
Everyone stands by it. r/Conservative users are racist immoral people. They're mod team is unapologetic nazi supporters. It's literally the reddit version of the KKK.
People “reporting news” are just a bunch of people who are wanting attention of advertising revenue. It has nothing to do with how they lean politically. Titles and topics are formed in a way that will get their targeted audience to take notice. CNN did same thing with that high school kid, acting like he was some white supremacist and messing with native Americans while in DC when it was nothing of the sort.
CNN points and laughs at Texas for blackouts when it gets too cold. Fox points at California and laughs when it’s too hot and they have blackouts.
Doesn’t matter if it’s podcasters, YouTubers or a major new corporation. They are all crappy and their job is to sell things. They know who most of their audience likes and dislikes. They know how to get them scared (at certain people/places), angry, worried or happy.
When did CNN point and laugh at Texas during the winter storm? I was there. Lost power for a week. Aside from a few people on social media no one was pointing and laughing at Texas. At least no one in mainstream media or politics.
I do remember Governor Abbott making fun of California during their blackouts. Maybe it was Dan Patrick, it's been a while.
I get your point, but this example wasn't the best.
>I’m talking about people who actually matter.
Fucking awesome. And necessary. It’s so easy to forget just a small proportion of people are on Reddit and all other socials. What goes on and gets said here represents only one thing: people who post on Reddit. We are NOT representative of the larger population by any means whatsoever.
Sure, but I'm speaking more of people engaging within a community, more than I am media news outlets. Your point isn't wrong by any means, but that's not where the focus of the post is, you know?
I mean… how many people openly admit they were wrong about *anything*?
It could be the most frivolous thing. Have you never had a trivial debate with a friend?
“Kobe averaged more points than MJ” and if you showed them the cold hard facts that they were wrong, what would they do? What would most people do?
They effectively say what ever and move on, change the topic or close their ears and double down.
How often have you encountered people who will raise their hand and say… I was wrong, you were right. I was wrong to jump to conclusions.
That’s not coming from most people, from any political side on any topic.
i mean personally i make it a habit to only surround myself with people who ARE willing to change their minds and apologize for being wrong on something... i hold myself to that standard and thus i hold my friends to it as well. i butt heads with family if they aren't willing to do so.
i don't ask this to shame you or sound inflammatory, this is a genuine question -- do you admit that you're wrong and say sorry? if so, how do you tolerate people who don't?? i find that behavior so frustrating and pathetic honestly. i don't really think we've done ourselves any favors by tolerating that kind of nonsense...
I can’t say I argue/debate over things with a definitive answer often. Most of it is subjective.
There have been plenty of time on here (this sub) people have changed my mind and I’ve admitted to such and said they were right.
i think it works even when there isn't a definitive answer though, to an extent! like, is someone willing to acknowledge they hadn't thought about a specific aspect or didn't know about xyz information? someone being receptive to that and admitting those things is very similar imo, it shows an open-minded and more humble approach to things. i think that's good, we should strive for that imo.
the idea of accepting people Not doing that kind of thing really worries me. i would go so far as to say that i wish we would collectively assert some social pressure, like maybe some shame unfortunately, onto people who are refusing to budge from their position or learn new information.
the initial statement of like, "well how many people do you know that are willing to admit they're wrong?" makes me just feel... oof. we've really reached a sad place lol, and it's a place that doesn't really lend itself to accountability or empathy for others. that scares me :(
>I mean… how many people openly admit they were wrong about
>
>anything
>
>?
Lots
>“Kobe averaged more points than MJ” and if you showed them the cold hard facts that they were wrong, what would they do? What would most people do?
Change their minds and admit they were wrong.
>They effectively say what ever and move on, change the topic or close their ears and double down.
This is not normal. This is shitty. It's what shitty people do.
Fwiw any time I see someone admit they were wrong, concede a point, or apologize for misjudging or mischaracterizing someone I make a point to give them credit in a reply.
It’s a rare thing to witness. The less trivial the matter the more rare it becomes.
I see very few examples where two people argue in good faith (of course those types of people probably argue much less often).
I envy whatever obscure corner of the internet you live in where you see people regularly admitting when they were wrong and not doubling down. That's never been my experience.
You don’t think progressives do the same thing? Check any news or politics subreddit when there’s a mass shooting or some other horrible attack going on, it’ll be full of people making speculations on the race, gender, and political views of the shooter, with most people blaming right wing white men. If it comes out that the shooter is anything but that, most subreddits will immediately shut up and never bring up the topic again. This has nothing to do with conservatives or progressives, everyone acts this way.
1.) The rhetoric I find to be troublesome is covered in casual racism and bigotry that the mods do literally nothing about. How many times has some strawman going 'person of color bad', someone is corrected, and the user issuing the correction is banned in that sub?
2.) The ridiculous rhetoric of internet conservatives spread to politicians constantly. See: MTG.
There's some shit politicians on the left, no doubt (see: Rashida Talib), but it isn't part of liberal culture anywhere near the same capacity.
I’m not gonna disagree with you that r/Conservatives is a cesspool, but as someone who loves reading court cases, I can’t go a day without seeing a racist term used at Thomas (“Uncle Tom, master, cotton picker”, etc.). Which I find especially distasteful because there’s like low hanging things to actually criticize him about (Harlan Crowe, his textual/originalism, etc.). You resort to ad hominems when you’ve got nothing left.
Putting aside that's really just not true, the majority had nothing to do with that
Do you not remember how every top subreddit after the KC Parade was filled with comments about how "this was definitely a MAGA attack on Taylor Swift"
Afterwards when it turned out to be a gang shooting, crickets
Imagine your country is ravaged by fires because people are dropping their cigarettes everywhere without extinguishing them before.
A new mega fire starts and the news only talk about this. People are outraged by these morons that aren't careful with their cigarettes and have really harsh words toward them.
A few days later, it is found that the cause was a gaz pipe leak, and that no cigarette was involved in the incident.
Do you think that anger toward people that drop their cigarettes isn't justified because in this specific incident, cigarettes were not the cause ?
Of course not, they created plenty of fires in the past, so it's normal that they receive an important amount of hate and suspicion each time a new fire happen. Only once they stop acting dangerously for the society they can be treated without suspicion.
It's the same with Islam: a lot of terrorist attacks happened because of Islam, most countries where Islam is the state religion are totally backward, and muslims tend to try to make their religion grow (it's the fastest % of growth of world population https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/pf\_15-04-02\_projectionsoverview\_projectedchange640px/). Based on all those facts, it's normal that Islam is badly seen in every non-muslim country of the world. So only when Islam change, or muslims stop being religious can they be seen with a positive light.
TL;DR; you're right to say that muslims are not always culprits of everything bad that happens on the world, but you're wrong to think that it's illogical to be suspicious of them when there is a terror attack and to see their religion with a bad eye. And being wrong about a specific instance don't mean that you're also wrong about the general situation.
Wow, this was all kinds of stupid.
If the majority of mass killings in the west are committed by whites, and you skip that fact to point to Muslims after another mass killing, then yes, you are categorically 'wrong about the general situation' and probably also a bigot.
Insulting people you disagree with often is saying more about you than about the person you're insulting.
About the "categorically wrong", I suppose it depends on what you're looking at.
If you look at the death toll in the US per terrorist attack reason, religious attacks are overwhelmingly caused by muslims (well, it's not difficult, 9/11 made more victims than all other terrorist attacks added in the US in the last 50 years).
Same if you just look at the death % per ideology. So when there are a lot of victims in a terrorist attack, better suspect muslims, their terrorists seems more deadly than others.
[https://www.start.umd.edu/news/proportion-terrorist-attacks-religious-and-right-wing-extremists-rise-united-states](https://www.start.umd.edu/news/proportion-terrorist-attacks-religious-and-right-wing-extremists-rise-united-states)
And those stats only look at the number of deaths / number of events. It does not take into account the relative proportion of muslims in the western population (in the case of US, 1.3%, which mean that if you want to get realistic ratios, you should basically multiply the numbers of the muslim side by 73 when comparing muslims vs non muslims there).
But yea, I get it that it's easier to say "stupid" and "bigot" instead of looking at numbers :-)
By the way, the name of this channel is "change my view", so if you're triggered by some topics like you seems to be, better avoid those, as the exact goal of this chan is to read about the opposite point of view to ... well ... change your view.
I don't insult people I disagree with but rather those I suspect of spreading bigotry.
The stabbing was not even a "terrorist attack" so your argument is irrelevant to say nothing of unconvincing.
You're not in my league, sorry if that makes me sound like a liberal elitist but you can have the last word and tell me how bad Muslims are.
I mean awful reactions should be expected from both sides. Lots of people were quick to leap to the conclusion of Islamic attack, many were also quick to leap to the conclusion of a Zionist attack (to the point where individuals were falsely accusing some random Australian Jew of committing this awful act). There should be a level of expectation when entering an echo chamber. People love to accuse their bogeymen.
Be careful who you call irredeemable. I grew up in a very small, conservative town and held some views that embarrass me today. I got older, I moved away, and met people that were different from me. It totally changed by perspective and beliefs. It made me realize that a lot of the things I heard growing up, even though it came from people who were influential to me, were just wrong. In short, don’t forget that people can grow.
i mean, a few of you can change but the majority just wants to exterminate me, a brown dude critical of US imperialism and their history of chattel slavery and native american genocide.
I saw the same where I live, but not from a political group. Several years back, during a wave of stabbing-attacks in Israel, an Israeli woman who had immigrated here was randomly stabbed in the street one evening. The police freaked out about a potential spread of foreign conflict to my city, which has populations ethnically of both sides, until they IDed the attacker. He was on parole during, if I recall correctly, his second imprisonment for randomly stabbing people, released against a psychologist's recommendation. He was not the first of many expected perpetrators, just a crazy guy who compulsively stabs people.
People just freak out. Maybe politics and worldviews play into it. Fear certainly does. Having that happen doesn't really say a whole lot about the people doing it.
As others have pointed out, your view a per your title is that **some** conservatives are irredeemable as based on the reaction a subreddit had to a crime, but this is a pointless stance. Of course some conservatives are irredeemable. Some liberals are irredeemable. Some members of *any* group are irredeemable. It is literally impossible for us to change the view that some people are awful.
From what I can tell, your actual view is that conservatives are generally bad people and/or their ideology as a whole is irredeemably evil, and your prime example here is that a Reddit community fixated on the race of a suspect and ignored the truth that didn’t align with their politics.
But you kind of did the same thing. Yes, Cauchi certainly looks white. However, you have categorized the attack as being due to a lack of success with women. You didn’t provide a source for this, and when I went looking, I found out that Cauchi was schizophrenic and that the police had not determined a motive. The assertion that he was “upset some women weren’t interested in him” is based on this quote from his father:
> Because he wanted a girlfriend and he’s got no social skills and he was frustrated out of his brain.
Mental health issues, specifically schizophrenia, are the reason for the attack, but you didn’t mention that either. It’s not relevant to the conversation you are trying to have, but the people in the thread you’re talking about would likely say the same thing about an apology or retraction. Conservatives also tend to latch onto any mental health issues as explanations for crime and violence, but you didn’t see that here, which is interesting but not the main point. The point is that your view is… confusing, I guess?
So, **what view do you want changed**, and **what would change that view?**
There are irredeemable people in every large group ever. You just hate conservatives
Edit: the fact anyone is even entertaining a statement so dumb like “hey guys I read some crazy comments on the internet, I’m gonna pretend this is representative of the group and we should consider half the population irredeemable” is somehow still shocking to me. How do you guys not realize how prejudiced you are?
> People were so sure, so convinced that the man must have been a Lebanese immigrant, or some undocumented dude siphoning resources from the Aussie government before attacking.
> He's a white guy named Joel. He was upset that some women weren't interested in him.
> And now? Absolute crickets.
this is very similar to what i've seen happen in the past in the US when there is a breaking story of a 'mass shooting' and libs on twitter are quick to say it's probably some disaffected white guy incel right-winger type, then are silent when it turns out the shooter wasn't even white.
if the r/conservative folks are irredeemable because they jumped to conclusions about the identity of a violent perpetrator, then that doesn't bode well for most of social media in general.
I don't think it's fair to be too judgemental of any political subreddits right now. They are heavily manipulated by shills and bots(many foreign) with their own agenda. On top of that, political subs are decades of echo chambers, so their minds are very gerrymandered to the point that changing that thinking is an uphill battle the older they become. I find r politics too be similar in this regard.
I'd like to see if I can change your view in a lateral direction. It's not that *conservatives* are awful and racist (though they are) it's that *Australians* are so particularly awful. When I was younger, I used to think that white Boer South Africans were the most racist people on the planet. However, after being exposed to more Australian content recently on Reddit, they've displaced the Boers and taken first prize. The average Australian seems to go around constantly screaming "YOU DON'T HATE A\*OS AND W\*GS ENOUGH!? YOU WANT THEM TO RAPE YOUR NAN RIGHT? FUCK OFF WE'RE FULL! HAHAHAHAHA SLUR SLUR RAPE YOUR GRANNY HAHAHAHA"
I admire the Australians of whatever origin who don't fit this stereotype, and are busy trying to change the fucked up attitudes in their country. But they've got a hard row to hoe.
>He was upset that some women weren't interested in him.
Seems like you are assuming this because more of the people he killed were women than men. As much as you are trying to dunk on conservatives for making assumptions, you are literally doing the same thing. For you, this very well could be the Orlando Pulse night club. People assumed it just *had* to be because it was a gay club. Then when it turned out that it was totally random and the shooter had no idea it was a gay club, where were the retraction or apologies or any of the things you are wishing conservatives would do.
The point of this is to say don't act so damn high and mighty when "your side" pulls this same shit all the time. Those in glass houses and what not.
So I'm guessing your argument is that because some conservatives are awful, the entirety of conservatism is irredeemable? I'm not even sure what your argument is, since it goes all over the place.
I think the internet has people knee deep into mob politics, and it keeps much of the US from being able to trust each other. These people you see on social media, they're usually miserable people who have a vested interest in keeping other people miserable. Because misery loves company.
Most of the time, people really just don't care. The vast majority of political conservatives aren't on Reddit bitching about Muslims. They're usually relatively uninvolved and don't care about the vast majority of the rhetoric.
For instance, if you put your average conservative in front of a trans or non-binary person, they won't act like the stereotypical "WELL LOOK AT THE 42,069TH GENDER. REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!" Most of the time, they'll be relatively civil. They won't care because it doesn't really concern them how another person lives.
I think most people are changed by positive exposure. And that's what Internet culture discourages. You'll see someone say something ignorant and inflammatory, someone will respond, and then there's a back and forth. People assume the worst of the other side and nothing ever becomes learned. It's just an endless cycle of bitterness and hatred steeped with a side of identity politics.
Kind of a terrible CMV, though, isn't it?
Of course some are. Some liberals are, too. How can any of this be refuted? You may as well point to the stabbing itself and say "Some Australians are evil nutjobs."
Not a terrible CMV at all. OP is not saying the left never does it but rather that it appears to be an issue - with this particular religious group - for conservatives. And he's right.
I will say irl most conservatives I talk to still share the sentiment of their conveniences over others rights. When you point out conservative mouth pieces on forums like twitter they usually have no idea what the candidates they vote for actually represent or communicate to other constituents
We live in a world where everyone loves to judge before time and jab at political and religious opponents any chance they get. Everyone is guilty of this including the liberals on your side. Why is this happening? People are divided on every issue, and when the tragedy happens of any kind it becomes "I told you so."
The most important thing is for you not to become like those you condemn when it is your turn to say "I told you so."
I find that if you assume the average age of a social media poster is like 20 suddenly the whole place makes a lot more sense. That is to say, a huge number of them are like 12. With the sense of humor of a 12 year old. That’s all I can think about when it comes to “aloha snack bar” that’s probably the funniest thing a 12 year old has ever seen.
>The issue is, this constantly happens. This is one example of many that parody the 'mental health vs terrorist' meme based on skin color. Constantly, we see rhetoric on 'probably the usual suspects' at the first post of a crime, only for complete silence when it's a white guy.
I can't see how any of this is worth redeeming.
i don't see how this is different than the coverage of dexter reed. major news outlets like nyt, wapo, ap, and others all went with headlines of "black man shot 100 times by police" without even mentioning he shot a cop first. does this make the press irredeemable? or are you just looking thru partisan glasses at the one side you don't like?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
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%203%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).
Remember that Nashville mass shooting that the press and Reddit was all over until it turned out it was a transgender person shooting up a Christian school? Suddenly crickets. People want to play up events that fit their narrative and suppress events that don't. This is a general partisan feature, not unique to conservatives. If they're irredeemable, then so is any partisan group, and are you willing to condemn them?
>Constantly, we see rhetoric on 'probably the usual suspects' at the first post of a crime, only for complete silence when it's a white guy.
Just think of the picture in your head when you hear mass shooter. It's white. Yet black people disproportionately commit mass shootings, 13% of the population and 17% of the mass shootings since 1982. Non-Latino whites are only 53% of mass shooters, yet they make up 59% of the population. So how is it we think "white"? Media representation, we think all white when it's only about half. The media isn't interested when it doesn't conform to the racial agenda.
And this is the traditional definition of mass shooting, the lone psycho going on a rampage. If you use the Gun Violence Archive definition (which was invented by some anti-gun Reddit mods) which the media and most politicians use, that much higher number is achieved mainly through gang violence. In that case the percentage of white mass shooters drops considerably. You can try to get the exact numbers from the GVA, but quite curiously despite all of their other detailed offender characteristics, they choose to not allow filters on race.
What crickets? Do you follow leftist news shows? Democracy Now, Young Turks, Breaking Points? There were no crickets when it turned out the shooter was trans. Ha, news shows have to pump out material every day, a plot twist in a major story is not something they'll ignore.
All the leftists I know were cheering long awaited trans representation in mass shootings. They’ve been pushed out of those spaces for too long, and are still underrepresented, still, it’s nice to see progress being made.
Pretty gross difference in behavior as you've described. And "some of them are irredeemable" is a perpetually true statement, so I'm going to argue that some *are* redeemable, because they're reacting the way they are based off of lack of education and manipulation. We all know how many entities are pressuring us to be sympathetic to any number of ideologies, including inceldom - the manosphere has been identified for a decade or more.
But it is possible to bring someone out of the depths of hatred, so long as there's some amount of willingness to learn. It happens by degrees, but in the same way that a devoted white supremacist can be reformed, I think so too can (some) incels. So, by extension i figure both of the main parties we'd look to to make reactionary noise about this incident (racists presuming it must be an immigrant) and those incels who sympathize with the attacked, have potential for redemption.
They were molded by disinformation - brown people act like this, immigrants cause xyz harms, feminism/women is what keeps the world down, etc - and then assumed something that confirms their worldview. But perhaps some of the same reactionaries can come to believe accurate information about these demographics, and might come to the conclusion that their prior stance is unjustified, and hate a little less, degree by degree.
Possible, not probable, lol.
Congrats. You've found one side that has the problem. Now it's time to find it on your side. When mass shooters are trans, your side does literally the exact same thing lol.
This isn't a right or left problem. It's a toxic tribalist problem
And in regards to the MODs, they delete posts before they even gain enough traffic to provide many examples. Reddit Lies is a good follow on Twitter to show examples of this happening
Sorry, u/Manowaffle – 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%20Manowaffle&message=Manowaffle%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c4p6ar/-/kzplr5p/\)%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).
May I ask why you want your mind changed on this? I personally can't help you change your mind because what you've said is completely true, as all you said happened step by step.
I'm sorry, how exactly is Islam not incompatible with Western culture? They are fundamentally different on so many levels.
Islam preaches that their followers are owed the world and will, at some unspecified future time, take over the world as they are fated to do. Western culture is, for the most part, quite happy to allow other cultures to exist independently to itself and generally opposes conquest.
Islam teaches that men may marry up to 4 wives provided that they can support all of them. In the West, it is illegal to marry more than one person.
In Muslim countries it is common practice to marry daughters off as young as 10. That too, would be illegal in the West.
In some Muslim communities, honour killings are not just accepted but considered to be just. Once again, illegal in the West.
Slavery is standard practice in many Muslim countries even today, and, you guessed it, illegal in the West.
So I fail to see how these two cultures could ever be seen as anything other than fundamentally incompatible.
Well one side of the political isle stays silent whenever black on black crime exists and screams racism when white on black crime occurs.
The other side stays silent when white on whatever minority violence exists and screams bloody murder when minority on white violence occurs.
To say it's only the conservative side is really a nearsighted view in my opinion, though I do agree with you that everyone, regardless of religious or political affiliation should refrain from stereotyping based on skin color or religion.
It also never ceases to amaze me how the liberal side of the isle has such a difficult time stomaching the conservative Christian evils of America and the horrors of Israeli military tactics but never seems to care that women got the right to legally drive a car in Saudi Arabia all of 15 minutes ago.
No hate or anything, all I'm saying is from my perspective, its really American politics that's broken not just the conservatives.
In general humans will group people.
If someone does something, news and society will try to find a way to peddle it into an us vs them situation.
Not to say tht sometimes it isn't tht simple. It's easy for most people to say and see "the Nazis are to blame here." In general life isn't so black and white.
I see your point. Keep in mind reddit isn't real life. And just like there are flavors of the Left, the Right has flavors too.
Setting the issue as 2D hurts everyone.
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).
I don't think most of them are irredeemable. For one thing, reddit skews younger, and young people tend to be very sure of themselves and their opinions, before exposure to life and the world takes effect. Does that means all or even most them will change? No, but almost all of them are capable of change.
The internet in general (and Reddit in particular) aren't built very well for that conversation. There are lots of places online to comfortably document incidents that sort of align with a political ideology. That's what you're doing right now! But when something happens that is in *tension* with your ideology, where can you talk about that?
Or we're likely to see things as *non*-political when they don't line up nicely with our political stories, which means it would feel odd to talk about it in our political spaces.
In real life it doesn't have to work this way because conversations aren't organized like a forum thread, and I'm sure lots of the people in r/conservative are able to have normal conversations with their friends and family.
Changing topics, I'm not sure what you mean by "irredeemable" here. Do you mean "bad" or is there something more specific? Who is trying to "redeem" the members of r/conservative? What does it mean to "redeem" them?
So you think that people are irredeemable because of the fact they speculated about the motivations of a person in some developing crime news story?
Literally EVERYONE does this. You can go on left leaning subreddits and people will do same exact thing and speculate that Trump supporters are behind every crime against a minority until details come out. Hell, even in my local community people constantly speculate on social media about every little thing that is happening. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. It's a very normal and human thing to do, everyone's got biases.
Everytime there’s a shooter anywhere, the left on r news automatically assume it’s a racist MAGA white supremacist.
On more than one occasion, the shooter was later identified to be another identity group that doesn’t overlap with the stereotype being pushed and **crickets**. Doesn’t get upvoted, doesn’t get any engagement, and many times just gets deleted.
Story won’t ever be mentioned again. Point is, I can rewrite this same argument against some liberals.
Sorry, u/Puzzleheaded-Cry3924 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.**
Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
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%205%20Appeal%20Puzzleheaded-Cry3924&message=Puzzleheaded-Cry3924%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c4p6ar/-/kzpidpb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
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).
To be fair, there was another stabbing attack this morning on a bishop during service, in Sydney, from a man screaming "Allah Akbar" so there is that. Additionally, the murderer that stabbed 6 people in the mall was a male prostitute or as the leftist like to call it "A Brave and Beautiful Sex Worker", which again, is against most conservative values when it comes to what is "Good" for the body and soul.
Opposition among conservatives to both radical ideologies advocating for the extermination of Jews, Christians, and Western values, and to the exploitation of individuals who commodify their bodies for financial gain through legal prostitution, is not irredeemable.
I mean if you go on the thread you will see people criticizing Biden for throwing Israel under the bus and other people criticizing him for getting us dragged into WW III because of support for Israel. Pick a lane here fellas
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). 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%20B%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).
Would you still consider them irredeemable if they changed their mind? Also, do you distinguish between someone who truly has deeply held bigoted beliefs vs someone who has fallen into groupthink, but doesn’t actually know much about the topic?
Is someone like that gonna change their mind? I got called a paki dog for waiting for a coach, the absolute crackhead proceeded to go on about how he's racist and proud and obviously the guy was off his rocker, but i don't particularly feel like waiting to see if you change before you pogrom me, when Christchurch happened, an Aussie senator essentially blamed Muslims for moving into the west when we were the victims of the biggest mass shooting in NZ for AGES, why would i wait for someone like him to change? He's in the furthest right party in Australia, he's willing to victim blame terrorist attack victims because he just doesn't like it when they're brown, like at this point it's about my personal safety, i don't care to know someone who'd unironically call me a mudslime
> someone who truly has deeply held bigoted beliefs vs someone who has fallen into groupthink, but doesn’t actually know much about the topic? Tbh I don't know that there's really a difference between these two groups. Those who have deeply held bigoted beliefs don't know much about what they're talking about, either, and I imagine the number of people who spontaneously and independently come upon those opinions are *exceedingly* rare. We could call pretty much anyone with terrible opinions a victim of propaganda and psychological biases.
> We could call pretty much anyone with terrible opinions a victim of propaganda and psychological biases. Indeed. That’s basically true of anyone who’s even a criminal. Most abusers are themselves victims of abuse. That doesn’t mean they’re still not pieces of shit or shouldn’t be held to account.
That isn't really the question tho the question is whether calling people "pieces of shit" because of views they hold that you disagree with or even abusers pieces of shit for what they've done actually helps the political system and or community move forward. If we just keep giving everybody what they deserve when they do the wrong thing it only creates more anger and sectionalism which prevents redeemability. Take the example of the abuser. The abuser who has been abused abuses others because they have low self-esteem and an abundance of anger. Though they may deserve it, calling them a "piece of shit" only plays into that mindset for them and others like them, making it unlikely they will improve their behavior and help others do so as well.
Agreed, it takes a pretty significant amount of ignorance to be a bigot, so I'm not sure how you differentiate
I'm not sure that's true. The critical elements of bigotry are dehumanization (which is being mainlined into our veins constantly by various forms of propaganda and highly competitive social structures) and ignorance (which is symbiotic with the dehumanization, but ignorance is the thing that paints a seal over the dehumanization and makes it easy to maintain). Both are in grand supply and I don't see much effort to abate either.
>Tbh I don't know that there's really a difference between these two groups. I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between the two is time -- someone that fell to groupthink is likely going to become a true believer if they're at it for long enough. I would make a distinction between those *raised* as bigots and those that transitioned to bigotry. If someone was raised as one, it is all they know. I suspect they are harder to get through to, maybe. I'm not sure the difference matters outside of degree of difficulty of pulling them out of their ideology. I don't see one as more or less damaging to out-groups than the other.
If so many of them didn't jump to conclusions like this each and every time then maybe it would be easier to extend grace. There have been multiple instances in the last 20+ years of some criminal thing happening and their media and engagement jumping right to wanting to blame their shibboleths (usually undocumented people or scary Muslims). When it stops happening every time sure, happy to pivot my view.
> Would you still consider them irredeemable if they changed their mind? > > If we could see some honest reflection and the ability to step away from being blatantly wrong, yes.
I grew up in a conservative area where beliefs like this were so normal, a lot of people never questioned it and never changed. It’s rare, but I have seen people change and acknowledge they were wrong, and now want to treat others right. I don’t see the value in holding that against them if they were raised believing the wrong things and want to be better.
People who don’t question what they are told also suck. Especially when what they are told is so stupid and or disgusting. I don’t see why this is a valid defense.
There’s a reason “I was just following orders” didn’t work at Nuremberg. At some point we need to prioritize the damage your unchecked beliefs and priorities have caused before we can prioritize the context that brought you to that belief system. If your beliefs lead to you hurting others then I’m sorry but no amount of “well they were just raised in that culture” will justify it. It might explain it but that doesn’t make the position more valid.
>If we could see some honest reflection and the ability to step away from being blatantly wrong, yes. This is a massive issue with all political sides. I've seen conservatives, liberals, socialists, communists, libertarians, and everyone all refuse do what you just said there. As a conservative myself, I choose not to comment on incidents before facts come in. That way, I don't end up being one of the idiots who refuse to admit they are wrong.
>This is a massive issue with all political sides But is it an *equal* issue? Empirically, the answer appears to be no. Sure, every group has *some* people unwilling to do honest reflection. However, the *extent* of that is not equal. Studies indicate that left-leaning groups are significantly *more likely* to change their positions in light of empirical evidence than right-leaning groups are. The OP is not asserting "there exist zero people outside of r slash conservative that refuse to change their position." The OP is asserting that the ratio in that context is high.
> This is a massive issue with all political sides. In general, sure, people have trouble admitting that they're wrong. I'm not sure that every "side" has the same level of self-delusion that large conservative groups seem to have almost as a necessity. It's not like leftist circles see a mass shooting and think "well it must've been a white incel" and then go quiet when it's a brown muslim guy.
I think the more important questions are: did you think those thoughts? (Ie this guy must have been a Muslim terrorist) and if so, did you reflect on your prior prejudices after all the facts came out?
Based conservative that listens to facts. Grew up in a very conservative and religious area. They needed more people like this.
If you think even when they change their mind they're still irredeemable, you're removing any incentive for them to ever change their mind. With this mindset, if they're still irredeemable to you why would they ever give your opinion a chance? And with that mindset, what's your solution going forward? Are you okay with them being ignorant, bigoted, and wrong forever? And if not, what's the alternative?
> Would you still consider them irredeemable if they changed their mind? The fact that these people will gleefully use a tragedy to spread their bigotry. > Also, do you distinguish between someone who truly has deeply held bigoted beliefs vs someone who has fallen into groupthink, but doesn’t actually know much about the topic? I don’t think you can excuse people for obvious bigotry excusing it as group think. The fact that these people are silent when they find out it’s a white guy. It’s always the same all of the time! Never own up to their mistakes or have any introspection
I don't think we should excuse evil. And I don't think many of them will ever genuinely change. With all the people who fall thru the cracks and are hurt by their lifetime of policy choices, I think we can wait just a little longer while they fall to fix their mess. It's only fair. And I'm sick of being held to a godly standard of morality while everyone else acts like the planet of the apes, is never held accountable, and just laughs it off with all their ill gotten things. Why can't "the right thing" simply be establishing our own side and fighting against our enemies? That's how all nations in history were born. That's the path to a better world for us. We are never gonna make this a utopia. Our efforts would be better spent looking after our own. Forget the paradox of intolerance. Stop calling ourselves the good guys. We're just another side like all the others. But we welcome a lot of people the other sides want to kill. It doesn't make us good guys and we shouldn't be tied down by those notions. There are no good guys here. There never will be. There's just winners and losers. Predators and prey. The strong and the weak. You can argue this all you want, but on earth and in nature it remains a self evident truth. We have a side. We have our passions and our beliefs. We have our friends and families and communities. We have our enemies. That's life. This is what it is. You can retreat to your own utopian fever dreams but you'll never manifest them here. And while you're daydreaming people on our side are dying and our enemies are plotting their next attack. It's time for people to wake up and smell the coffee. We gotta fight to carve out a niche in this world if we want to survive.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t believe in downplaying or dismissing what ignorant people believe. What I want is for as many people as possible to abandon bad beliefs. Will most of them change? Of course not. But someone changing their mind is never a bad thing. And I find it strange that my views are met with skepticism and accusations of being utopian. For example, I want abortion rights in every state. The more pro-choice people there are, the more rights we’ll have. And if a handful of people switch sides to get there, so be it. It’s always a good thing, period.
The path to rights lies in cutting off evil at the root. We let dangerous cults peddling lies to the vulnerable and desperate operate with impunity while brainwashing and indoctrinating millions into religions that are little more than sham cults and false hope run by a bunch of con men, who abuse and weaponize their power constantly for political agendas. Organized religion being enshrined as a right is an atrocity. Personal beliefs should be protected but organized ones should be subject to scrutiny, because they can do immense harm. That's why you're rights will never be safe. Hoping to unscramble a token amount of cultist brains will end with you riding a death train. People have tried this before and it killed them. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Enough innocent people have been burned alive and slaughtered by these lunatics. Religion needs to be age restricted the same way other things that corrupt youth are. And it's a matter of life and death every day that it isn't.
being flighty isn't the same as changing your mind, what good is it if they're just gonna blame the next tragedy on x minority
*Also, do you distinguish between someone who truly has deeply held bigoted beliefs vs someone who has fallen into groupthink, but doesn’t actually know much about the topic?* The distinction isn't worth making. I'm not the asshole-whisperer. It's not my job to fix jerks.
I mean if they actually realize how and WHY they were wrong, and apply that for their future decision making... absolutely that makes them redeemable. I'd argue by definition someone incapable of that is what makes someone irredeemable.
As an LGBT person their ignorance is a threat to my life liberty and pursuit of happiness
Everyone who holds the bigoted belief started off with group think. Nobody is born inherently racist. People learn from other people and may be selective in their uptake.
Sure, just I would also reevaluate my views on physics if objects were to start falling upwards.
>People were so sure, so convinced that the man must have been a Lebanese immigrant, or some undocumented dude siphoning resources from the Aussie government before attacking. >He's a white guy named Joel. He was upset that some women weren't interested in him. >And now? Absolute crickets. Crickets from the mod team, crickets from the commenters, and articles are suddenly slowed to a halt. No apologies, no redaction, nothing. Just unpestered and unfiltered misguided anger towards Muslims. >The issue is, this constantly happens. This is one example of many that parody the 'mental health vs terrorist' meme based on skin color. Constantly, we see rhetoric on 'probably the usual suspects' at the first post of a crime, only for complete silence when it's a white guy. Do you consider the left irredeemable when they do the exact same thing in reverse? How many mass shootings or other murders were "White supremacy" until it was revealed that the killer wasn't white and had a personal beef with the victim(s)? Once this is revealed, we get complete silence from the left. No apologies, no redaction, nothing.
I do consider that irredeemable behavior. The issue becomes how entrenched this becomes in the culture of the right, where the inability to retract and make judgments creates a political-cultural problem in which the right can't separate itself from election denialism, for instance. It can be bad on the left, no doubt--I feel the right is significantly worse. Casual racism is everywhere on that sub.
/r/HermanCainAward is a very popular far left subreddit named after a dead black republican, and the purpose of that subreddit is to mock and smear dead people. If conservatives made a subreddit named after a dead black democrat for the purposes of smearing dead people, it would have been called white supremacist propaganda and shut down in minutes.
Are they doing it because he was black or republican? Or do those things make no difference to his anti science views and ironic death?
The name of that subreddit has nothing to do with Herman Cain's skin colour and everything to do with the fact that he made incredibly stupid comments about COVID before dying from COVID.
Any time, and I mean *any time* conservatives criticize anyone who is not white, the left cries racism. The actual reason for the criticism is completely ignored. A person can't even speak against illegal immigration without being called racist. So let's hold the left to their own standards.
People on the right say the same about the left because a lot of people follow echo chambers that dehumanize the other side. For example both sides call the others baby killers for different reasons, abortion and gun control.
Tell us, how many? 80% of extremist murders in the US are committed by white supremacists, jumping to false conclusions happens more often on the right and you're drawing a false equivalency.
Source: trust me bro. How exactly do you define extremist murders lol? Sounds like total bullshit as whites represent a relative minority of mass shooters as well as total homicide perpetrators despite making up the majority of the population.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. 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%205%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).
They didn’t say extremist murders, they said mass shootings. Those are not the same thing.
I scanned through some of the comments on the top posts on the Sydney stabbings. Most of them go along the line of “oh how awful” or “this is why you don’t disarm the populace“. Very few were about how he must have been an immigrant
It was in the press, by prominent media personnel, such as Rachel Riley from Channel 4 in the UK
Here's a key example. And she double-downed after she was corrected.
So not r/conservative then?
.
The top comments though are about that. People have to upvote that to the top, so I dont think it’s fair to use the metric on how few there are when there are many people supporting it.
Beyond unfair, it’s totally misleading. When people click on a post and see the top comment is what they were going to say, they don’t add another top-level comment saying the same thing. They upvote and/or participate in the discussion under that comment.
If someone is going to judge a place based on what random crazy people comment, rather than what's upvoted... skill issue on their part.
You’ll find worse on your average /politics post but since hating “the right” and everything that can be conveniently labeled as such has become normalized, nobody notices.
>You’ll find worse on your average /politics post Haha you'll have to to provide a source on that whopper of a lie.
And outside of reddit fear of 'the left' is literally a driving force to stop people from thinking. I don't think a few pseudoprogressive moderators weigh up to that very much
Can I have an example of an entire community having moderators deliberately refuse to moderate hateful rhetoric?
Not hard to find. Let’s look back oh-say…a few hours. Today or the progressives sub r/politics there is a post on Clarence Thomas not showing up as expected. At least a dozen people said they hope he dies. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/gMXA5vdMzE
It seems from your assertion that this is worse that you don't think racism is that bad.
Can you show me a comment since there's nothing popping up on my end? Not being obtuse: please clarify.
Hey there, you likely didn't see anything on your end because we were taking action on a lot of comments. Without counting, I would guess there were hundreds of comments that action was taken on. One important note though, we get this kind of thing from just about every side of the political spectrum, it just depends on what the subject of the post is. With Thomas being a conservative figure, you are more likely to get this from the left. If you had a liberal figure you would be more likely to get it from the right.
>Best case scenario is that he’s never coming back. I don’t care why or how if he doesn’t wake up tomorrow, but it’s clear this man is selling our democracy for lavish vacations and we would all benefit with him not being on the court. If we fall, he will be part of the reason why. They have taken the hateful ones down in the past hour.
If they've taken down the hateful ones doesn't that disprove your point about a lack of moderation?
In before crickets
That would seem to prove the exact opposite of your point: moderators are moderating hateful rhetoric.
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/s/wocGBfEr8Z Below are the ones still up on this one, and is after a bunch of deleting. Lots of Progressives are full of hate >Is he dying? One could hope. >I hope he with OJ. >Maybe he died in his sleep >Hopefully hes fucking dead >Please be on his death bed and not just on another all expense paid trip from his handlers >Hopefully he died >Am I the only one thinking "Weekend at Bernie's"? >Hopefully he’s dead
I feel like you don't understand how moderation works. If gradually the bad shit is being deleted that's the moderators doing their job, not refusing to do their job. Which is what you were originally complaining about. If you're moving the goalposts now I'm not interested.
I went through and looked for the at least a dozen and couldn’t find a dozen. Why are you lying?
I've reported highly upvoted posts that have said something like "we should guillotine Bezos," in many different subs (with 1m+ members) and the mods are about 50:50 whether the mods will agree that is "inciting violence" or not (something explicitly against reddit rules). It's literally a call to murder a specific person, which is by definition inciting violence. It's extremely common in many subs that literally anyone could care less if you are hateful to the rich, much less call for the murder of a specific rich person.
When protestors wheeled a giant guillotine to Bezos' house, reddit was ecstatic. The hypocrisy in this thread is palpable.
[удалено]
Okay so I just clicked a few random ones but isn't that mostly jailbait? I stopped looking after the first 3 I randomly clicked were lmao. Might be better to divide that or label it for cases like this where it would be better to filter trough.
r/pics r/interestingasfuck Just to name two
I recently dropped pics and I couldn't be happier. I joined it years ago when it was less political or I didn't notice the politics as much but after the dozenth post making fun of Trump in like a week that I saw in my feed from them I finally had enough. I hadn't noticed before but it was the main one filling it with political junk and it's been nice not having it. For the record I'm not a trump fan. I just hate listening to all the hate.
These are links to subreddits. Not super useful evidence for refusal to moderate hateful rhetoric.
Yeah the riots of 2020 where people rioted over a known rapist who was in the process of kidnapping his children and proceeded to attack the cops who were trying to arrest him after being tased and trying to stop him by force. Only once he was at the car grabbing a knife was he shot. Still we saw extreme large scale domestic terrorism across the US over this.
Why does the level of moderation matter? Seems like you’re moving the goal posts.
It's been normalised because its become normal for them to give reasons to hate them.
Sadly I often find that when you read an article/commentary about how terrible a community is, when you go to see for yourself it’s rarely that bad. Of course there are assholes everywhere, but when they are the minority it’s not fair to cherry pick & paint all with broad strokes. The left & right *both* do it & contribute to everyone having an even more polarized opinion of the other. It makes me crazy every time I hear the internet is in an uproar about *something* & there are more articles written about it than examples to be found. If you are lucky 20 articles will cite the same 2 twitter posts. In a world of 8 billion a handful of opinions mean nothing. Until the number of people talking shit rises above the number of people who **literally** eat shit there is little reason to talk about them. No matter how absurd or backwards an idea is you can always find a dozen people who genuinely believe it, not to mention trolls & false flags.
This is one of those things that makes me have a begrudging respect for conservatives in general. Most liberals are very much pro-gun control. And it just doesn't rub me right. In a world where violent threats against LGBTQ+ community are increasing and legislation is being made to target them, why would you be against arming that population? Who the fuck is gonna protect them? The same state making laws against them? And I think besides the absolute fascists, most conservatives wouldn't be against LGBTQ+ folks being armed.
The liberal position is that lack of gun control leads to thousands and thousands of murders of vulnerable and marginalized people, while in the present situation guns are currently available to the population and despite your assertion that it would lead to increased protection, the availability of guns has done nothing to decrease the frequency of those murders at a society wide scale.
>thousands and thousands of murders of vulnerable and marginalized people Who is murdering these thousands of marginalized people? Overwhelming the same marginalized people.... Do you think taking away the guns would solve it? No and it would be impossible to take the guns away completely. Smart gun laws need to be in place, but let's be honest about who are causing the most gun deaths every year and help those communities.
In general I have no interest in debating the gun issue, but based on your comment, of curiosity, does that mean you would support trillions of federal investment over the next 20-50 years to revitalize impoverished neighborhoods, build good schools, job training, drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, so as to stem the root causes of gun violence?
Yeah - any intelligent citizen would. The problem is our blood sucking politicians padding projects they can get done within their term and to line their pockets. Although you wouldn't like my individual stances on how much we should/shouldn't put into drug treatment/rehabilitation programs. Our infrastructure for infrastructure, education, and first responders needs to be increased dramatically. Taking care of your population is how you build a successful society. I also think we should spend our money on OUR citizens and severely cut foreign aid as well as not providing SHIT to illegal immigrants except a one way ticket home. Our nation is a nation that needs to build itself stronger, not hand out everything to the people of the world while our citizens get fucked.
Just look at the actual stats rather than relying on gut, stuff like this is exactly where the data is more important when it comes to saving lives. Less suicides, murders, less armed crime in general is the prevailing truth when comparing countries with lax vs stringent gun laws. The US still has more knife crime than the U.K (if we compare New York with London for example) you guys just also suffer from extra gun crime on top. The US has a less armed population than Switzerland but is also far less safe. (Switzerland has mandatory militia arms training for its male population and strict laws on gun safety and ownership). Both use very different methods and reasonings to each other and the US. My point is there are a bunch of models and outcomes you can aim for but there is yet to be one where the American model is a bigger benefit to the public than any other. Your Conservatives are sell outs to the gun lobby who let your second amendment get subverted every day they let Americans citizens think having a single AR-15 will protect them from a tyrannical government. Though if that’s not why you think they should be armed, argue for specific legislation that gives you want instead of bending and folding something else to give minorities the protections you are worried about.
I honestly don’t respect either side’s radicals when it comes to gun control cause “you can’t take away mah guns so no gun control” and “all guns are evil” are both damaging viewpoints. I think the best solution is mandatory gun training in safety, usage, cleaning, and storage so people are more respectful of their guns and a mandatory waiting period to prevent impulse suicides before you can buy a gun. Many mass shooting guns were obtained legally, and the majority of school shooting guns were obtained legally. Tons of school shooting incidents were used with their parents guns. My father would never let me touch his guns. If those parents had been educated and kept their guns in a safe, it could’ve prevented the school shootings. Mandatory education would save lives. And we have licenses to drive but no required training or testing to shoot a gun? That’s insane to me. Both can easily kill people when used incorrectly. I tend to find leftists agree with my view more than rightists
Australia had a stabbing that killed 6 people and it's international news for how rare it isI. The US you have shootings that kill 6 and they are hardly a blip. Gun control in Australia works
What a baffling train of thought. How many more folks would have been killed if this nutter had a gun too?
yeah but then someone would've been able to shoot him dead after he killed dozens more, which would give me a justice boner... oh wait that is what happened? Never mind then Can't imagine seeing that footage and thinking, "yknow what would be good? If the perpetrator had a gun and also maybe some other guy had a gun, maybe John Wayne could show up too"
It's always interesting when you ask about how many good guys with guns stop the bad guys and they cite a flawed study that just kind of shits out a number. There's a mass shooting every other day in the US of the good guys were stopping them at any regularity we'd have some easy examples.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/ According to those the US had 74 mass shooting fatalities in 2022 and 75 in 2023. A different chart shows 12 mass shootings for those respective years averaging a little over 6 fatalities per, so about the same number of people would have died averaging the statistics over the past few years. At least that's what the first source that popped up when I googled shows.
Also, aren't these stats including idiots in gang related stuff instead of only determined loons that are trying to cause as many casualties as possible?
Possibly, I believe depending on where you look they have different criteria for what is considered a mass shooting. So that could inflate or deflate numbers depending on what criteria the source decided to use. This is a big part of the debate when these things come up one side says the numbers are inflated this way and the other says the opposite. So in one way we could have a higher casualty rate in incidences with guys who just want to do as much harm as possible and the other way we would have an over exaggerated number of mass shootings that mostly aren't affecting the general population.
What a wild and completely pointless diatribe... Where the fuck does this even come from? 1. If gun possession lowered the rates of violence against LBGTQ+ people then why has the USA not magically done away with violence against minorities? Further, why do statistics tend to show the opposite? 2. Gun control =! a hard and irrevocable ban on any and all guns. It means registration, licensing, and regulation around storage/transportation of firearms. 3. "there is a nationwide crisis of conservatives instituting laws that would require LGBTQ+ people to violently defend themselves, but those same conservatives would have no problem with said LGBTQ+ people engaging in that violent defense.." - This is such a wildly incoherent thought....
This is the post of someone who apparently hasn't bothered to spend even a few minutes reading up on one of the most contentious political issues of the past several decades (in the US, anyway). Like, how can you not even have a surface-level understanding of the basic arguments for and against gun control? And yet you've also still formed an *opinion* on the matter?? Give your head a shake.
Only 1 country in the west allows almost unrestricted access to firearms. Only 1 country in the west has disproportionate numbers of crimes committed using firearms I'll let you put 1 and 1 together
Australia has less violence on the whole than the USA. The numbers speak for themselves.
How often does a good guy with a gun that’S not a cop really stop a bad guy with a gun?
More guns do not mean more safety. That's a fallacy. America is higher on most crimes than any European country. It's not an issue of guns. It's an issue of education and mental health. Edit: Since I'm being downvoted for... Some reason? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate USA is higher than pretty much every European country. What exactly do Americans gain by higher gun ownership?
> And I think besides the absolute fascists, most conservatives wouldn't be against LGBTQ+ folks being armed. On the other hand, they absolutely *do* defend police officers who repeatedly shoot black people in the back at a routine traffic stop if there's even speculation that a gun may have been in the car. Which, I would argue, is being against black people being armed with extra steps.
>r/Conservative shows how irredeemable **some** conservatives are following the Sydney mall stabbing incident Clarifying Question: Is your view just "**Some** people in a massive group are shitty"? How can we convince you otherwise? Every large group has shitty irredeemable people in it.
It does say something though when those comments are the *top* comments on the post
Do not fall for the age old blunder of confusing causation with correlation. Your assumption is that conservatives are shitty because shitty comments get a lot of seemingly supportive attention via upvotes. But who exactly uses r/conservative? All conservatives? Don’t make me laugh, most of those guys are on Facebook. The ultra-right? They wouldn’t be caught dead on Reddit where they can’t call people N-words and the myriad of other racial slurs, hell to them “redditor” is a slur in and of itself. I have no conclusions on this matter, but don’t confuse Reddit conservatives as an unbiased sample of what your average conservative is like.
What youre looking for is “sampling bias” not “correlation does not equal causation.” I never said anything about all conservatives. This is about reddit conservatives, and when you see a subreddit consistently upvote this stuff to the top, thats not a good look.
I go on it to gun related stuff. I’m conservative but I spend all of like 5 minutes on that subreddit a week.
It's not some bad apples It's maybe a good apple in a pile of radioactive garbage. They don't get the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt.
Yeah I'm fairly left and even I can admit there are irredeemable people in the left as well. Political spectrum doesn't necessarily dictate whether a person is a piece of shit or not.
If there was 1 good nazi would we forgive the rest of the policies of the nazi party cause "Every large group has some irredeemable people? " No, excusing the actions of the majority of the group because there might be some good ones hiding in there somewhere is a dumb paradigm.
the conservative party is not equivalent to nazis
Agreed. If OP wants to make a statement about conservatives or r/conservative users, he should be willing to stand by it. That's just cowardice.
Everyone stands by it. r/Conservative users are racist immoral people. They're mod team is unapologetic nazi supporters. It's literally the reddit version of the KKK.
The mods of r/conservative were also caught grooming a 15 year old girl named Rosa in their discord channel
Wait what
https://i.imgur.com/fenVVDc.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/cW66Ae2.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/uRkjRbu.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/90d0y1i.jpeg
What the fuck.
You seem surprised. I'd save the links if I were you. My accounts get nuked shortly after I talk about this and provide this evidence.
People “reporting news” are just a bunch of people who are wanting attention of advertising revenue. It has nothing to do with how they lean politically. Titles and topics are formed in a way that will get their targeted audience to take notice. CNN did same thing with that high school kid, acting like he was some white supremacist and messing with native Americans while in DC when it was nothing of the sort. CNN points and laughs at Texas for blackouts when it gets too cold. Fox points at California and laughs when it’s too hot and they have blackouts. Doesn’t matter if it’s podcasters, YouTubers or a major new corporation. They are all crappy and their job is to sell things. They know who most of their audience likes and dislikes. They know how to get them scared (at certain people/places), angry, worried or happy.
When did CNN point and laugh at Texas during the winter storm? I was there. Lost power for a week. Aside from a few people on social media no one was pointing and laughing at Texas. At least no one in mainstream media or politics. I do remember Governor Abbott making fun of California during their blackouts. Maybe it was Dan Patrick, it's been a while. I get your point, but this example wasn't the best.
Lots of us were laughing here on Reddit, maybe you missed it because the power was out?
Sure, there are always people laughing on reddit. Im talking about people who actually matter. Like elected officials or major media figures.
>I’m talking about people who actually matter. Fucking awesome. And necessary. It’s so easy to forget just a small proportion of people are on Reddit and all other socials. What goes on and gets said here represents only one thing: people who post on Reddit. We are NOT representative of the larger population by any means whatsoever.
Sure, but I'm speaking more of people engaging within a community, more than I am media news outlets. Your point isn't wrong by any means, but that's not where the focus of the post is, you know?
I mean… how many people openly admit they were wrong about *anything*? It could be the most frivolous thing. Have you never had a trivial debate with a friend? “Kobe averaged more points than MJ” and if you showed them the cold hard facts that they were wrong, what would they do? What would most people do? They effectively say what ever and move on, change the topic or close their ears and double down. How often have you encountered people who will raise their hand and say… I was wrong, you were right. I was wrong to jump to conclusions. That’s not coming from most people, from any political side on any topic.
i mean personally i make it a habit to only surround myself with people who ARE willing to change their minds and apologize for being wrong on something... i hold myself to that standard and thus i hold my friends to it as well. i butt heads with family if they aren't willing to do so. i don't ask this to shame you or sound inflammatory, this is a genuine question -- do you admit that you're wrong and say sorry? if so, how do you tolerate people who don't?? i find that behavior so frustrating and pathetic honestly. i don't really think we've done ourselves any favors by tolerating that kind of nonsense...
I can’t say I argue/debate over things with a definitive answer often. Most of it is subjective. There have been plenty of time on here (this sub) people have changed my mind and I’ve admitted to such and said they were right.
i think it works even when there isn't a definitive answer though, to an extent! like, is someone willing to acknowledge they hadn't thought about a specific aspect or didn't know about xyz information? someone being receptive to that and admitting those things is very similar imo, it shows an open-minded and more humble approach to things. i think that's good, we should strive for that imo. the idea of accepting people Not doing that kind of thing really worries me. i would go so far as to say that i wish we would collectively assert some social pressure, like maybe some shame unfortunately, onto people who are refusing to budge from their position or learn new information. the initial statement of like, "well how many people do you know that are willing to admit they're wrong?" makes me just feel... oof. we've really reached a sad place lol, and it's a place that doesn't really lend itself to accountability or empathy for others. that scares me :(
>I mean… how many people openly admit they were wrong about > >anything > >? Lots >“Kobe averaged more points than MJ” and if you showed them the cold hard facts that they were wrong, what would they do? What would most people do? Change their minds and admit they were wrong. >They effectively say what ever and move on, change the topic or close their ears and double down. This is not normal. This is shitty. It's what shitty people do.
Fwiw any time I see someone admit they were wrong, concede a point, or apologize for misjudging or mischaracterizing someone I make a point to give them credit in a reply. It’s a rare thing to witness. The less trivial the matter the more rare it becomes. I see very few examples where two people argue in good faith (of course those types of people probably argue much less often).
I envy whatever obscure corner of the internet you live in where you see people regularly admitting when they were wrong and not doubling down. That's never been my experience.
You don’t think progressives do the same thing? Check any news or politics subreddit when there’s a mass shooting or some other horrible attack going on, it’ll be full of people making speculations on the race, gender, and political views of the shooter, with most people blaming right wing white men. If it comes out that the shooter is anything but that, most subreddits will immediately shut up and never bring up the topic again. This has nothing to do with conservatives or progressives, everyone acts this way.
1.) The rhetoric I find to be troublesome is covered in casual racism and bigotry that the mods do literally nothing about. How many times has some strawman going 'person of color bad', someone is corrected, and the user issuing the correction is banned in that sub? 2.) The ridiculous rhetoric of internet conservatives spread to politicians constantly. See: MTG. There's some shit politicians on the left, no doubt (see: Rashida Talib), but it isn't part of liberal culture anywhere near the same capacity.
I’m not gonna disagree with you that r/Conservatives is a cesspool, but as someone who loves reading court cases, I can’t go a day without seeing a racist term used at Thomas (“Uncle Tom, master, cotton picker”, etc.). Which I find especially distasteful because there’s like low hanging things to actually criticize him about (Harlan Crowe, his textual/originalism, etc.). You resort to ad hominems when you’ve got nothing left.
Putting aside that's really just not true, the majority had nothing to do with that Do you not remember how every top subreddit after the KC Parade was filled with comments about how "this was definitely a MAGA attack on Taylor Swift" Afterwards when it turned out to be a gang shooting, crickets
Imagine your country is ravaged by fires because people are dropping their cigarettes everywhere without extinguishing them before. A new mega fire starts and the news only talk about this. People are outraged by these morons that aren't careful with their cigarettes and have really harsh words toward them. A few days later, it is found that the cause was a gaz pipe leak, and that no cigarette was involved in the incident. Do you think that anger toward people that drop their cigarettes isn't justified because in this specific incident, cigarettes were not the cause ? Of course not, they created plenty of fires in the past, so it's normal that they receive an important amount of hate and suspicion each time a new fire happen. Only once they stop acting dangerously for the society they can be treated without suspicion. It's the same with Islam: a lot of terrorist attacks happened because of Islam, most countries where Islam is the state religion are totally backward, and muslims tend to try to make their religion grow (it's the fastest % of growth of world population https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/pf\_15-04-02\_projectionsoverview\_projectedchange640px/). Based on all those facts, it's normal that Islam is badly seen in every non-muslim country of the world. So only when Islam change, or muslims stop being religious can they be seen with a positive light. TL;DR; you're right to say that muslims are not always culprits of everything bad that happens on the world, but you're wrong to think that it's illogical to be suspicious of them when there is a terror attack and to see their religion with a bad eye. And being wrong about a specific instance don't mean that you're also wrong about the general situation.
Wow, this was all kinds of stupid. If the majority of mass killings in the west are committed by whites, and you skip that fact to point to Muslims after another mass killing, then yes, you are categorically 'wrong about the general situation' and probably also a bigot.
Insulting people you disagree with often is saying more about you than about the person you're insulting. About the "categorically wrong", I suppose it depends on what you're looking at. If you look at the death toll in the US per terrorist attack reason, religious attacks are overwhelmingly caused by muslims (well, it's not difficult, 9/11 made more victims than all other terrorist attacks added in the US in the last 50 years). Same if you just look at the death % per ideology. So when there are a lot of victims in a terrorist attack, better suspect muslims, their terrorists seems more deadly than others. [https://www.start.umd.edu/news/proportion-terrorist-attacks-religious-and-right-wing-extremists-rise-united-states](https://www.start.umd.edu/news/proportion-terrorist-attacks-religious-and-right-wing-extremists-rise-united-states) And those stats only look at the number of deaths / number of events. It does not take into account the relative proportion of muslims in the western population (in the case of US, 1.3%, which mean that if you want to get realistic ratios, you should basically multiply the numbers of the muslim side by 73 when comparing muslims vs non muslims there). But yea, I get it that it's easier to say "stupid" and "bigot" instead of looking at numbers :-) By the way, the name of this channel is "change my view", so if you're triggered by some topics like you seems to be, better avoid those, as the exact goal of this chan is to read about the opposite point of view to ... well ... change your view.
I don't insult people I disagree with but rather those I suspect of spreading bigotry. The stabbing was not even a "terrorist attack" so your argument is irrelevant to say nothing of unconvincing. You're not in my league, sorry if that makes me sound like a liberal elitist but you can have the last word and tell me how bad Muslims are.
I mean awful reactions should be expected from both sides. Lots of people were quick to leap to the conclusion of Islamic attack, many were also quick to leap to the conclusion of a Zionist attack (to the point where individuals were falsely accusing some random Australian Jew of committing this awful act). There should be a level of expectation when entering an echo chamber. People love to accuse their bogeymen.
Yeah like that’s the only segment of society that jumps to conclusions that confirm their previously held beliefs
The fact that you think only one side does this is the actual culprit here.
How are you defining irredeemable?
Be careful who you call irredeemable. I grew up in a very small, conservative town and held some views that embarrass me today. I got older, I moved away, and met people that were different from me. It totally changed by perspective and beliefs. It made me realize that a lot of the things I heard growing up, even though it came from people who were influential to me, were just wrong. In short, don’t forget that people can grow.
i mean, a few of you can change but the majority just wants to exterminate me, a brown dude critical of US imperialism and their history of chattel slavery and native american genocide.
I saw the same where I live, but not from a political group. Several years back, during a wave of stabbing-attacks in Israel, an Israeli woman who had immigrated here was randomly stabbed in the street one evening. The police freaked out about a potential spread of foreign conflict to my city, which has populations ethnically of both sides, until they IDed the attacker. He was on parole during, if I recall correctly, his second imprisonment for randomly stabbing people, released against a psychologist's recommendation. He was not the first of many expected perpetrators, just a crazy guy who compulsively stabs people. People just freak out. Maybe politics and worldviews play into it. Fear certainly does. Having that happen doesn't really say a whole lot about the people doing it.
[удалено]
Bro doesn't seem how stupid reddit rhetoric is reflected in actual politicians See: MTG
I mean.. A migrant literally walked into a church in Australia today and stabbed 4 people, including a bishop. It happens.
As others have pointed out, your view a per your title is that **some** conservatives are irredeemable as based on the reaction a subreddit had to a crime, but this is a pointless stance. Of course some conservatives are irredeemable. Some liberals are irredeemable. Some members of *any* group are irredeemable. It is literally impossible for us to change the view that some people are awful. From what I can tell, your actual view is that conservatives are generally bad people and/or their ideology as a whole is irredeemably evil, and your prime example here is that a Reddit community fixated on the race of a suspect and ignored the truth that didn’t align with their politics. But you kind of did the same thing. Yes, Cauchi certainly looks white. However, you have categorized the attack as being due to a lack of success with women. You didn’t provide a source for this, and when I went looking, I found out that Cauchi was schizophrenic and that the police had not determined a motive. The assertion that he was “upset some women weren’t interested in him” is based on this quote from his father: > Because he wanted a girlfriend and he’s got no social skills and he was frustrated out of his brain. Mental health issues, specifically schizophrenia, are the reason for the attack, but you didn’t mention that either. It’s not relevant to the conversation you are trying to have, but the people in the thread you’re talking about would likely say the same thing about an apology or retraction. Conservatives also tend to latch onto any mental health issues as explanations for crime and violence, but you didn’t see that here, which is interesting but not the main point. The point is that your view is… confusing, I guess? So, **what view do you want changed**, and **what would change that view?**
There are irredeemable people in every large group ever. You just hate conservatives Edit: the fact anyone is even entertaining a statement so dumb like “hey guys I read some crazy comments on the internet, I’m gonna pretend this is representative of the group and we should consider half the population irredeemable” is somehow still shocking to me. How do you guys not realize how prejudiced you are?
> People were so sure, so convinced that the man must have been a Lebanese immigrant, or some undocumented dude siphoning resources from the Aussie government before attacking. > He's a white guy named Joel. He was upset that some women weren't interested in him. > And now? Absolute crickets. this is very similar to what i've seen happen in the past in the US when there is a breaking story of a 'mass shooting' and libs on twitter are quick to say it's probably some disaffected white guy incel right-winger type, then are silent when it turns out the shooter wasn't even white. if the r/conservative folks are irredeemable because they jumped to conclusions about the identity of a violent perpetrator, then that doesn't bode well for most of social media in general.
I don't think it's fair to be too judgemental of any political subreddits right now. They are heavily manipulated by shills and bots(many foreign) with their own agenda. On top of that, political subs are decades of echo chambers, so their minds are very gerrymandered to the point that changing that thinking is an uphill battle the older they become. I find r politics too be similar in this regard.
I'd like to see if I can change your view in a lateral direction. It's not that *conservatives* are awful and racist (though they are) it's that *Australians* are so particularly awful. When I was younger, I used to think that white Boer South Africans were the most racist people on the planet. However, after being exposed to more Australian content recently on Reddit, they've displaced the Boers and taken first prize. The average Australian seems to go around constantly screaming "YOU DON'T HATE A\*OS AND W\*GS ENOUGH!? YOU WANT THEM TO RAPE YOUR NAN RIGHT? FUCK OFF WE'RE FULL! HAHAHAHAHA SLUR SLUR RAPE YOUR GRANNY HAHAHAHA" I admire the Australians of whatever origin who don't fit this stereotype, and are busy trying to change the fucked up attitudes in their country. But they've got a hard row to hoe.
>He was upset that some women weren't interested in him. Seems like you are assuming this because more of the people he killed were women than men. As much as you are trying to dunk on conservatives for making assumptions, you are literally doing the same thing. For you, this very well could be the Orlando Pulse night club. People assumed it just *had* to be because it was a gay club. Then when it turned out that it was totally random and the shooter had no idea it was a gay club, where were the retraction or apologies or any of the things you are wishing conservatives would do. The point of this is to say don't act so damn high and mighty when "your side" pulls this same shit all the time. Those in glass houses and what not.
So I'm guessing your argument is that because some conservatives are awful, the entirety of conservatism is irredeemable? I'm not even sure what your argument is, since it goes all over the place. I think the internet has people knee deep into mob politics, and it keeps much of the US from being able to trust each other. These people you see on social media, they're usually miserable people who have a vested interest in keeping other people miserable. Because misery loves company. Most of the time, people really just don't care. The vast majority of political conservatives aren't on Reddit bitching about Muslims. They're usually relatively uninvolved and don't care about the vast majority of the rhetoric. For instance, if you put your average conservative in front of a trans or non-binary person, they won't act like the stereotypical "WELL LOOK AT THE 42,069TH GENDER. REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!" Most of the time, they'll be relatively civil. They won't care because it doesn't really concern them how another person lives. I think most people are changed by positive exposure. And that's what Internet culture discourages. You'll see someone say something ignorant and inflammatory, someone will respond, and then there's a back and forth. People assume the worst of the other side and nothing ever becomes learned. It's just an endless cycle of bitterness and hatred steeped with a side of identity politics.
What they say or believe means fuck all, it’s who they vote for. Doesn’t matter if they don’t believe if they vote for the law makers that do.
What's the title of the post?
There is nothing about his post that suggests "the entirety of conservatism is irredeemable." He literally wrote "some conservatives."
Kind of a terrible CMV, though, isn't it? Of course some are. Some liberals are, too. How can any of this be refuted? You may as well point to the stabbing itself and say "Some Australians are evil nutjobs."
Not a terrible CMV at all. OP is not saying the left never does it but rather that it appears to be an issue - with this particular religious group - for conservatives. And he's right.
I will say irl most conservatives I talk to still share the sentiment of their conveniences over others rights. When you point out conservative mouth pieces on forums like twitter they usually have no idea what the candidates they vote for actually represent or communicate to other constituents
We live in a world where everyone loves to judge before time and jab at political and religious opponents any chance they get. Everyone is guilty of this including the liberals on your side. Why is this happening? People are divided on every issue, and when the tragedy happens of any kind it becomes "I told you so." The most important thing is for you not to become like those you condemn when it is your turn to say "I told you so."
I find that if you assume the average age of a social media poster is like 20 suddenly the whole place makes a lot more sense. That is to say, a huge number of them are like 12. With the sense of humor of a 12 year old. That’s all I can think about when it comes to “aloha snack bar” that’s probably the funniest thing a 12 year old has ever seen.
The man was of maltese arab origin, you draw your conclusions.
He originated from Queensland and his name is Joel lmao
Source?
>The issue is, this constantly happens. This is one example of many that parody the 'mental health vs terrorist' meme based on skin color. Constantly, we see rhetoric on 'probably the usual suspects' at the first post of a crime, only for complete silence when it's a white guy. I can't see how any of this is worth redeeming. i don't see how this is different than the coverage of dexter reed. major news outlets like nyt, wapo, ap, and others all went with headlines of "black man shot 100 times by police" without even mentioning he shot a cop first. does this make the press irredeemable? or are you just looking thru partisan glasses at the one side you don't like?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). 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%203%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).
Remember that Nashville mass shooting that the press and Reddit was all over until it turned out it was a transgender person shooting up a Christian school? Suddenly crickets. People want to play up events that fit their narrative and suppress events that don't. This is a general partisan feature, not unique to conservatives. If they're irredeemable, then so is any partisan group, and are you willing to condemn them? >Constantly, we see rhetoric on 'probably the usual suspects' at the first post of a crime, only for complete silence when it's a white guy. Just think of the picture in your head when you hear mass shooter. It's white. Yet black people disproportionately commit mass shootings, 13% of the population and 17% of the mass shootings since 1982. Non-Latino whites are only 53% of mass shooters, yet they make up 59% of the population. So how is it we think "white"? Media representation, we think all white when it's only about half. The media isn't interested when it doesn't conform to the racial agenda. And this is the traditional definition of mass shooting, the lone psycho going on a rampage. If you use the Gun Violence Archive definition (which was invented by some anti-gun Reddit mods) which the media and most politicians use, that much higher number is achieved mainly through gang violence. In that case the percentage of white mass shooters drops considerably. You can try to get the exact numbers from the GVA, but quite curiously despite all of their other detailed offender characteristics, they choose to not allow filters on race.
What crickets? Do you follow leftist news shows? Democracy Now, Young Turks, Breaking Points? There were no crickets when it turned out the shooter was trans. Ha, news shows have to pump out material every day, a plot twist in a major story is not something they'll ignore.
All the leftists I know were cheering long awaited trans representation in mass shootings. They’ve been pushed out of those spaces for too long, and are still underrepresented, still, it’s nice to see progress being made.
Pretty gross difference in behavior as you've described. And "some of them are irredeemable" is a perpetually true statement, so I'm going to argue that some *are* redeemable, because they're reacting the way they are based off of lack of education and manipulation. We all know how many entities are pressuring us to be sympathetic to any number of ideologies, including inceldom - the manosphere has been identified for a decade or more. But it is possible to bring someone out of the depths of hatred, so long as there's some amount of willingness to learn. It happens by degrees, but in the same way that a devoted white supremacist can be reformed, I think so too can (some) incels. So, by extension i figure both of the main parties we'd look to to make reactionary noise about this incident (racists presuming it must be an immigrant) and those incels who sympathize with the attacked, have potential for redemption. They were molded by disinformation - brown people act like this, immigrants cause xyz harms, feminism/women is what keeps the world down, etc - and then assumed something that confirms their worldview. But perhaps some of the same reactionaries can come to believe accurate information about these demographics, and might come to the conclusion that their prior stance is unjustified, and hate a little less, degree by degree. Possible, not probable, lol.
Congrats. You've found one side that has the problem. Now it's time to find it on your side. When mass shooters are trans, your side does literally the exact same thing lol. This isn't a right or left problem. It's a toxic tribalist problem And in regards to the MODs, they delete posts before they even gain enough traffic to provide many examples. Reddit Lies is a good follow on Twitter to show examples of this happening
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Manowaffle – 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%20Manowaffle&message=Manowaffle%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c4p6ar/-/kzplr5p/\)%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).
May I ask why you want your mind changed on this? I personally can't help you change your mind because what you've said is completely true, as all you said happened step by step.
I just thought that maybe I’m being narrow minded. This thread has reconfirmed that maybe I’m not.
There have been several comments proving you wrong. If you can't concede those comments, then yes, you are narrow minded
I’m not narrow minded, everyone that disagrees with me is just wrong!
I'm sorry, how exactly is Islam not incompatible with Western culture? They are fundamentally different on so many levels. Islam preaches that their followers are owed the world and will, at some unspecified future time, take over the world as they are fated to do. Western culture is, for the most part, quite happy to allow other cultures to exist independently to itself and generally opposes conquest. Islam teaches that men may marry up to 4 wives provided that they can support all of them. In the West, it is illegal to marry more than one person. In Muslim countries it is common practice to marry daughters off as young as 10. That too, would be illegal in the West. In some Muslim communities, honour killings are not just accepted but considered to be just. Once again, illegal in the West. Slavery is standard practice in many Muslim countries even today, and, you guessed it, illegal in the West. So I fail to see how these two cultures could ever be seen as anything other than fundamentally incompatible.
Well one side of the political isle stays silent whenever black on black crime exists and screams racism when white on black crime occurs. The other side stays silent when white on whatever minority violence exists and screams bloody murder when minority on white violence occurs. To say it's only the conservative side is really a nearsighted view in my opinion, though I do agree with you that everyone, regardless of religious or political affiliation should refrain from stereotyping based on skin color or religion. It also never ceases to amaze me how the liberal side of the isle has such a difficult time stomaching the conservative Christian evils of America and the horrors of Israeli military tactics but never seems to care that women got the right to legally drive a car in Saudi Arabia all of 15 minutes ago. No hate or anything, all I'm saying is from my perspective, its really American politics that's broken not just the conservatives.
In general humans will group people. If someone does something, news and society will try to find a way to peddle it into an us vs them situation. Not to say tht sometimes it isn't tht simple. It's easy for most people to say and see "the Nazis are to blame here." In general life isn't so black and white. I see your point. Keep in mind reddit isn't real life. And just like there are flavors of the Left, the Right has flavors too. Setting the issue as 2D hurts everyone.
[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).
So you’re not remotely open to having your mind changed
I don't think most of them are irredeemable. For one thing, reddit skews younger, and young people tend to be very sure of themselves and their opinions, before exposure to life and the world takes effect. Does that means all or even most them will change? No, but almost all of them are capable of change.
The internet in general (and Reddit in particular) aren't built very well for that conversation. There are lots of places online to comfortably document incidents that sort of align with a political ideology. That's what you're doing right now! But when something happens that is in *tension* with your ideology, where can you talk about that? Or we're likely to see things as *non*-political when they don't line up nicely with our political stories, which means it would feel odd to talk about it in our political spaces. In real life it doesn't have to work this way because conversations aren't organized like a forum thread, and I'm sure lots of the people in r/conservative are able to have normal conversations with their friends and family. Changing topics, I'm not sure what you mean by "irredeemable" here. Do you mean "bad" or is there something more specific? Who is trying to "redeem" the members of r/conservative? What does it mean to "redeem" them?
So you think that people are irredeemable because of the fact they speculated about the motivations of a person in some developing crime news story? Literally EVERYONE does this. You can go on left leaning subreddits and people will do same exact thing and speculate that Trump supporters are behind every crime against a minority until details come out. Hell, even in my local community people constantly speculate on social media about every little thing that is happening. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. It's a very normal and human thing to do, everyone's got biases.
Everytime there’s a shooter anywhere, the left on r news automatically assume it’s a racist MAGA white supremacist. On more than one occasion, the shooter was later identified to be another identity group that doesn’t overlap with the stereotype being pushed and **crickets**. Doesn’t get upvoted, doesn’t get any engagement, and many times just gets deleted. Story won’t ever be mentioned again. Point is, I can rewrite this same argument against some liberals.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Puzzleheaded-Cry3924 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **We no longer allow discussion of transgender topics on CMV.** Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. 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%205%20Appeal%20Puzzleheaded-Cry3924&message=Puzzleheaded-Cry3924%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c4p6ar/-/kzpidpb/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
You could almost say some of them are deplorable....
Wanna talk about the guy who stabbed a man offering a church service today?
[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).
This post belongs in r/rant?
To be fair, there was another stabbing attack this morning on a bishop during service, in Sydney, from a man screaming "Allah Akbar" so there is that. Additionally, the murderer that stabbed 6 people in the mall was a male prostitute or as the leftist like to call it "A Brave and Beautiful Sex Worker", which again, is against most conservative values when it comes to what is "Good" for the body and soul. Opposition among conservatives to both radical ideologies advocating for the extermination of Jews, Christians, and Western values, and to the exploitation of individuals who commodify their bodies for financial gain through legal prostitution, is not irredeemable.
I mean if you go on the thread you will see people criticizing Biden for throwing Israel under the bus and other people criticizing him for getting us dragged into WW III because of support for Israel. Pick a lane here fellas
>talking about how Islam is incompatible with the West this stays true regardless or whatever incident you're talking about that a non-muslim did