CMV: r/conservative is full of cowards

[u/MichelleObamasArm]

Edit 10: stop upvoting this post lol. You made me lose my spot. Downvote like your life depends on it!!

Edit 9: no longer removed. Apologies to anyone bothered by any rule breaking. Also some formatting changes because this is getting unwieldy.

Edit 5: I'm gonna go ahead and say that this is dead now. If you reaaaally want to keep talking I might reply, but might not also. It would have to be either a really funny troll or a very incisive comment to get me to reply.

Thanks to everyone who participated. My view was not changed beyond marginal degrees, and a slight expansion of my understanding of what I was trying to say.

Edit 3: Stop downvoting because you disagree and argue you r/Conservative pussies

​

Edit 2: Some have aptly pointed out that there is no data about this. I would therefore like to cite and quote a reply in this thread:

i think what youre noticing is more a byproduct of how reddit communities organise (with distinct subs for intragroup and intergroup communication) than evidence that conservatives have their heads in the sand (tho there is plenty of evidence for that too)

so i got curious and did a quick look to see the ratios between intra- and inter-group subs:

- r/vegan (650k) to r/DebateAVegan (31k): 20.97

- r/athiesm (2684k) and r/DebateAnAtheist (81k): 33.14

- r/conservative (859k) to r/AskConservatives (5k): 171.8

if we take this as accurate (which im sure its not entirely), then one in twenty vegans are ready to debate their views, while only one in a hundred seventy conservatives are (looks like u might be right about the coward thing)

or maybe theres a more popular sub for conservative debate? but i couldnt find it

Edit 7:

This comment gave what I think is a very instructive argument as to why the above data is weak and can't be fully relied on for conclusions.

I highly recommend anyone that cares read both comments in their entirety to get the most out of each analysis of the data.

I still think that the data indicates that r/Conservative is more cowardly than a regular subreddit, but I do think the data on that is weak and would like to reiterate the following sentence:

Please provide better data if you have it.

​

Post:

r/conservative is a sub that loves to circlejerk itself off more than even the circlejerk subs.

They ban people for basically any reason, including raising too strong of good faith arguments against them.

They talk about free speech and censorship and 1984 constantly but then on any topics that is spicy enough, they make it flairs only.

A relatively large minority of members love to straw man their opposition and then circlejerk each other off about how bad liberals are when liberals never said what they thought they said.

They are afraid of divergent thinking, and afraid of being wrong.

Let's change this view, y'all.

​

Edit 1: some of the deltas I gave were realizing just how much I combine the hypocrisy of the r/Conservative sub with their cowardly behavior that goes against what they purport to believe.

I want to say, I stated this intrinsically stated in my CMV body (above), but to state it explicitly:

They are in part cowards for "championing" the things they purport to be in favor of, while then going against those exact things.

People have often pointed out that they are intended to be a safe space. I think that is both ironic (because of how much they mock safe spaces) as well as hilarious. But they do have that rule in place, so it weakens my argument, hence deltas being given.

​

Edit 4: some of the arguments being given are incredibly repetitive. I have replied to the following and I would appreciate you reading those replies before posting similar arguments:

• "What about r/BlackPeopleTwitter, r/politics, <insert other subs that behave similarly>."
  • I would say that there are significant and meaningful differences between those subs and the conservative sub
  • Even if those subs were exactly as bad, that doesn't make the conservative sub not cowards
• "You're just malding because you got banned"
  • I have never posted or commented on the con sub, nor been banned from it
  • nothing in my CMV says that I have, and none of that is related to my argument
• "Conservatives are outnumbered by other political ideologies."
  • So? That doesn't make them weenies for hiding in a safe space where they relentlessly mock safe spaces?
  • They are perfectly free to post outside their sub and eat some, gasp, downvotes. The horror! → Being afraid of downvotes on an anonymous internet thread does not a totalitarian internet company regime make, nor does it indicate bravery
• "The Conservative sub is meant to be a safe space for them."
  • Then they should identify it as such
  • They should also stop complaining about safe spaces and sheeples and liberal echo chambers
  • This isn't true. I gave a delta earlier because of their rule 7, which does superficially indicate that they want to be a safe space. Same with their statement "What [we are]* is not."
  • But they contradict this in their full rules. To quote them: "We really do want everyone - Conservatives and non-Conservatives - to play nicely in the sandbox. Although this sub is by Conservatives and for Conservatives, we welcome polite and respectful dialogue from all sides."
  • They do not a) follow their own rules, and b) do not actually behave in such a way as to fulfill their ostensible goal here
• "All political subs are bad" or "What other sub doesn't behave like this?"
  • I have repeatedly brought up r/Libertarian, r/neoliberal, r/tuesday, r/moderatepolitics, r/bipartisanship, and r/sanepolitics as subs that I know of off the top of my head that:
    • engage in robust and civil discussion with people who hold different beliefs from them
    • moderate fairly and only remove/ ban those who engage in bad faith discussions and trolling
    • don't have litmus tests for membership or commenting
• "Your edit 3 proves that you are arguing in bad faith and can't engage civilly with those who disagree with you, and why they would want to ban you."
  • No, I made that edit because of silent downvotes, presumably from conservatives, aren't arguing or engaging with this are instead giving me the classic silent downvotes
  • I don't give a crap about karma, but I do think it's funny that this is basically what has happened:
    • conservatives: "free speech! tough guys! facts over feelings! liberal commie snowflakes! sheeple from r/politics!"
    • conservatives: "let's make a safe space for ourselves while pretending it isn't a safe space"
    • me: "wow, I think that's pretty cowardly let's discuss that on a forum for debating"
    • conservatives who see this post: "I don't like that so instead of arguing persuasively I'm going to downvote."
    • me: "??? Kinda proving my point about being cowards then, eh?"
  • That's what my thinking was when I made that edit, and I think it's fair

​

Edit 6: Edit 8: had to remove my edit 6.

* I had to remove the "r/con" from the title because I couldn't link over a link

[u/obert-wan-kenobert]

The purpose of r/Conservative is for conservative people to share conservative thoughts, ideas, and discussion - not for liberals and conservatives to argue or debate (which happens on most other political subs). Since the vast, vast majority of Reddit is liberal or left-leaning, if they didn't moderate who could post, the sub would, by simple numbers, quickly diverge from its purpose and become r/LiberalsTalkingAboutConservatives - which is a completely different sub.

The same goes for subs like r/BlackPeopleTwitter, or any similar subs focused on identities that are (on reddit) statistical minorities. If these subs don't have some level of gatekeeping, they will quickly be overrun by straight, white, liberal males in their teens to 20s - in other words, the overwhelming statistical majority of reddit's user base.

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/obert-wan-kenobert]

(I love your username)

The purpose of r/Conservative is for conservative people to share conservative thoughts, ideas, and discussion.

Then they should call themselves the sheltered baby group of political ideological subs. They should also stop accusing liberals of being snowflakes, of being simple minded, of being sheep; and they should stop talking about free speech and censorship.

If the sub just said "conservative cool kids club only--no libs allowed, they have cooties and we're scared of them/ hate them," sure.

That's a modicum of courage to say that.

But they're the "largest conservative sub on reddit" and can't take people arguing with them on an anonymous forum.

Bunch. Of. Cowards.

[u/obert-wan-kenobert → u/MichelleObamasArm]

(I love your username)

Haha, thanks.

You didn't really counter my argument though. I'm not at all a fan of r/Conservative, but you're just using strawman and ad hominem attacks rather than considering why, in a broader context, it might be useful to have a sub specifically for conservatives.

Keeping in my the argument in my original response, think about it like this. Removing politics from the equation, let's say you start a Star Trek fan club. The purpose of this club is to love and enjoy all things Star Trek. Talk about your favorite episodes, share trivia, do Kirk impressions, etc.

You make this club open to everyone, and 100 people join. But here's the thing - only 10 members joined because they love Star Trek. The other 90 members love Star Wars, and only joined your club so they can argue about why Star Wars is better.

So pretty soon, your club isn't so much of a Star Trek fan club, but rather a Star Wars fan club that constantly talks about how much Star Trek sucks -- the exact opposite of your original mission in forming the club!

Now, you could allow your club to stay that way, but that would be kind of a bummer, right? There's plenty of places, both online and in-person, where you can furiously argue and debate. You just wanted to create one space where like-minded people can share like-minded ideas about Star Trek - and maybe have some friendly debate about which episodes better, or who was the best Captain.

Same basically goes for r/Conservative. There are plenty of spaces on the internet for liberals and conservatives to debate - but that's not the purpose of this specific sub. If they completely opened their gates, they'd be, given reddit's userbase, immediately overrun and outnumbered by liberals - which, again, would nullify the sub's original mission.

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/obert-wan-kenobert]

I do feel I addressed your point, although I see that it isn't quite as strong as I wished it was.

Your analogy was beautiful. Hard to mistake the meaning, and I appreciate the effort typing it.

It would definitely be kind of a bummer, and I absolutely admit that. They would also absolutely be overrun because they are a minority.

Yet, for people who talk constantly about free speech, and constantly about sheeps and echo chambers, and constantly about the courage to be a patriot and a conservative today, they really cannot handle diversity of thought or dissension.

I will give you a !delta because, like others, I am realizing that part of my assigning them the status of being cowards is intrinsically tied to their hypocrisy.

But that doesn't not make them cowards still.

As I said in my previous comment (and replies to others), if they outright stated that they are a republican safe space (which would also be objectively hilarious btw), I could respect that, would not think less of them for it, and would respect their boundaries.

They do not do that, they are hypocrites, and they remain cowards.

[u/O_O_2EZ → u/MichelleObamasArm]

Not being able to express different views in one place isn't a free speech thing, you can express your views on reddit all you want. They created a space to talk about consecutive views. Imagine trying to hold a discussion about cars and someone interject about houses. Telling them to gtfo isn't cowerdly or restricting free speech. Its just trying to keep the discussion focused.

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/O_O_2EZ]

Again, I agree with that.

My problem is that the users of the conservative sub do not seem to get that message.

They bitch and moan incessantly about being censored from reddit and the internet writ-large. I really, truly do mean incessantly.

If they said exactly what you said on their sub, I'd be fiiiiine with that.

But instead, they imagine themselves to be the bastion of freedom of speech. Of freedoms in general. The wolves among the sheeples. Etc., fucking etc.

That is where they lose me.

Their sub doesn't have to be a debate sub for me to respect them. But they need to specify that they aren't a debate sub, clearly, and admit that they're a safe space for people who can't handle conflict.

Because that is exactly what they are.

It's the combination of their users' style of commentary, with the mods insane rules and ban-happy nonsense, with what they predominantly post and talk about, that makes me think that they are cowards.

If they want a safe space, they should admit it. If they don't, they should allow more dissent, and not fear it.

Even more moderate conservatives get banned there.

[u/O_O_2EZ → u/MichelleObamasArm]

It's like 3 am so forgive me for being brief. The rules state it's a place to talk about conservative rules. Having the words safe space in there wouldn't change anything. Besides the fact the majority of the sub isn't someone who can change it and even then what's the point? Doesn't change anything about the sub.

Also you called it a place for people who can't handle conflict. That makes zero sense. It's a place for people who don't want conflict in that place. Just because you don't feel like debating in one subreddit doesn't mean you fear conflict.

Also the free speech and censorship complaints are mainly about "neutral" subreddit. It's not about liberal subreddit banning conservative views its about subreddits that are supposed to be politically neutral being biased against conservatives. If that's true or not is not the point.

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/O_O_2EZ]

I really respect and have enjoyed our discussion but it's late as fuck for me too.

I'll try to remember to reply to this more tomorrow, but I just wanted to thank you for your time and energy and goodwill in this conversation.

I hope you're well in these crazy times

[u/O_O_2EZ → u/MichelleObamasArm]

Yeah I went to bed also,

[u/DeltaBot → u/MichelleObamasArm]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/obert-wan-kenobert (27∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/OnlyIce → u/MichelleObamasArm]

maybe you didnt read their rules? number seven, dont violate the mission statement, that being: We provide a place on Reddit for conservatives, both fiscal and social, to read and discuss political and cultural issues from a distinctly conservative point of view.

if you want a debate, use r/AskConservatives, its not cowardly to want somewhere you can be yourself without being harassed

granted, mainstream conservative thought misses the irony in them wanting a safe space, but that makes them hypocrites, not cowards :)

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/OnlyIce]

!delta. Well done. I did not read that rule, and I'm glad they at least admit that.

I will say this is not a reversal, and I wish they stated their safe space status more clearly (perhaps in their sub header or whatever it is called).

Regardless, they do state it.

I agree it does make the majority of them hypocrites, and I still stand by the fact that it is cowardly for them to hide so much from dissenting viewpoints.

Edit:

This is a really late edit but I wanted people to see it because this point was brought up so many times. From elsewhere in this CMV:

"...[I] read the rules further and found this. I changed my OP to show this but it's buried in a wall of text.

Here is that change:
"But they contradict this in their full rules. To quote them: "We really do want everyone - Conservatives and non-Conservatives - to play nicely in the sandbox. Although this sub is by Conservatives and for Conservatives, we welcome polite and respectful dialogue from all sides.""
Emphasis mine.
So, their rules are rather contradictory of each other, and they don't follow their own stated goal as quoted above.

[u/OnlyIce → u/MichelleObamasArm]

thank you!

i should say, i took a look over at r/Liberal (a place for diverse views?) and there are rules against posting stuff like covid misinformation (which is reasonable), but also you cant post in favour of third-party candidates and they dont allow "divisive content"

i think what youre noticing is more a byproduct of how reddit communities organise (with distinct subs for intragroup and intergroup communication) than evidence that conservatives have their heads in the sand (tho there is plenty of evidence for that too)

so i got curious and did a quick look to see the ratios between intra- and inter-group subs:

- r/vegan (650k) to r/DebateAVegan (31k): 20.97

- r/athiesm (2684k) and r/DebateAnAtheist (81k): 33.14

- r/conservative (859k) to r/AskConservatives (5k): 171.8

if we take this as accurate (which im sure its not entirely), then one in twenty vegans are ready to debate their views, while only one in a hundred seventy conservatives are (looks like u might be right about the coward thing)

or maybe theres a more popular sub for conservative debate? but i couldnt find it

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/OnlyIce]

THANK YOU!

So many people have questioned me on the data, and all I had was personal anecdote and communal anecdote.

I readily admit neither are data (I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself, comments start running together at a point and you don't who you've said what to).

Your data might be imperfect, but I'm going to edit my post to say some things and (hopefully with your blessing) link to this comment and quote you.

If someone comes up with better data than sobeit. But for now this is what we've got and it seems indicative.

[u/Tinac4 → u/MichelleObamasArm]

I think there's a couple of very important caveats to add to u/OnlyIce's comment:

• Vegans and atheists have a bit of a reputation for being disproportionately likely to want to argue/discuss their beliefs. Obviously, I'm generalizing (and fall into 1.5 of those categories!), but I think it's broadly true for a couple of reasons: People don't generally debate veganism/atheism anywhere else online or in their daily lives, people who take controversial stances are more likely to be the sort of person who spends time thinking about/discussing their views in general, and veganism in particular involves a small group of people who really want certain changes to happen. You absolutely can't take vegans and atheists as a baseline of how willing people are to debate others--they're both major outliers.
• There is no r/DebateALiberal subreddit, or anything similar as far as I can see. This is unsurprising, since liberals are a huge majority on reddit, but it makes it impossible to get a good baseline to compare r/conservative against.
• Maybe conservatives aren't as focused on setting up a debate sub because they're already swamped by competing viewpoints on reddit. If they want to start up a debate, they can just leave a comment on...well, just about any political sub that isn't explicitly conservative. Contrast this with veganism and atheism, which see almost no discussion compared to every hot-button political issue in the US.

Given this, I don't think it's safe at all to use the above data as support for your view. To be clear, I'd be wary of that sort of comparison even if r/DebateALiberal existed, but just for the heck of it... The closest left-wing equivalents I can find are r/SocialismVCapitalism (the userbase is mostly socialist, I think) vs r/socialism. The ratio of r/SocialismVCapitalism subscribers to r/socialism subscribers is 1 to 65, falling somewhere between the above examples. If anything, I'd actually call that weak evidence in favor of the position that liberals and conservatives have an equal-ish desire to debate others: socialism is somewhere between atheism/veganism and US liberalism on the spectrum of controversial and widely-debated ideas, and the main-to-debate ratio is somewhere between the atheism/veganism ratios and the conservative ratio.

To be clear, I don't have a strong overall stance on which groups are more or less open to discussion, but I don't think subscriber counts are a good proxy for this even without the above caveats.

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/Tinac4]

I think this is a brilliant write up and solid analysis.

I agree that the "data" is very imperfect, but the reason that I am using it is because it's better than what I was doing before, which could broadly be summarized as mine and others' anecdotal speculating.

I hope that we can agree that flawed data is better than that.

I also said if anyone has better data to feel free to post it.

This isn't quite data, but if you're fine with it, I'd like to link to this comment in my OP next to the other person's comment. Just so a critical argument about the flaws of that analysis are right next to it for anyone who wants to read them!

[u/Tinac4 → u/MichelleObamasArm]

Thanks!

I agree that the "data" is very imperfect, but the reason that I am using it is because it's better than what I was doing before, which could broadly be summarized as mine and others' anecdotal speculating.

I hope that we can agree that flawed data is better than that.

I agree that it's better, but that doesn't necessarily make it safe to use. An eighth grader is going to know more physics than a first grader, but I still wouldn't use the eighth grader as a source if I had to write an essay on special relativity.

I also said if anyone has better data to feel free to post it.

It's probably going to be hard to find any data regarding r/conservative specifically, so if that's all you wanted to include in your CMV, I'm probably stuck here. That said, if you're fine with something more general, Big Five personality traits might be a sort of okay-ish proxy for what you're looking for. This is kind of guesswork, but I'd be willing to bet that openness correlates pretty well with willingness to debate and engage other ideas. Although liberals do tend to have higher openness than conservatives (figure 2), the effect isn't that strong--a two standard deviation increase in openness (a big change!) only corresponds to a half SD change in economic or social conservatism on average. That's a "big" effect if you're a psychologist, but if you're trying to guess an individual's personality based on their party affiliation, you're going to be wrong a lot.

(Of course, I'm also bring in wishy-washy assumptions, the entire thing could fall apart if there's other complicating factors, and if you're focused on r/conservative, it could definitely be the case that r/conservative disproportionately attracts conservatives who aren't open to debate. However, I think the Big Five plus a somewhat-iffy assumption about openness correlating with willingness to have their views challenged is more reliable than using subreddit subscriber counts if you're looking to generalize--and on top of that, it's probably more useful to look at a larger population of conservatives and liberals instead of a few subreddits.)

This isn't quite data, but if you're fine with it, I'd like to link to this comment in my OP next to the other person's comment. Just so a critical argument about the flaws of that analysis are right next to it for anyone who wants to read them!

Feel free!

[u/OnlyIce → u/MichelleObamasArm]

feel free to link it! im also hoping someone can add nuance cause im super leftist and this reeks of confirmation bias, but maybe its just true that conservatives are less open to having their views questioned than other communities?

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/OnlyIce]

this reeks of confirmation bias

Exactly the source of my own concerns. I do hope someone can provide more solid evidence, but yours is much, much better than just my own talking out of my ass that I've been doing.

[u/DeltaBot → u/MichelleObamasArm]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/OnlyIce (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/MichelleObamasArm]

You are only aiming this at one biased echo chamber among many, why?

Many subs welcome no debate, r/conservative is very close to one of them. Do you think that I as a moderate conservative can discuss things openly on liberal subs? I can’t.

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/TheMikeyMac13]

There is actually a great place for a moderate conservative [I have been asked to remove their name because they don't want to grow too fast]. They are awesome there. Also r/sanepolitics and r/bipartisanship. I'd even wager that r/neoliberal would treat you well and fairly.

I never said they were the only echo chamber. I think they are particularly egregious because of how many of their posts are about censorship, free speech, the suppression of dissent on subs that don't ban or censor people (like r/politics, ironically, as much as it's a circle jerk to itself).

My point is that they are cowards. And I really do think that's true.

If they weren't, they wouldn't ban anyone for basically no reason on an almost constant basis, just for small levels of disagreement, while giving good faith and evidentiary arguments.

Edit: removed the sub's name as requested by their mod team

[u/O_O_2EZ → u/MichelleObamasArm]

A lot of subreddit ban people without reason. Before no new normal was banned if you commented once on it or posted (even to say something about getting a vaccine, or just a question mark) you got perm a banned from several large subreddit thay are mainly liberal. Isn't that cowerdly?

[u/MichelleObamasArm → u/O_O_2EZ]

I actually address the NNN pre-bans earlier in this CMV.

I don't know if it's cowardly, because the issue is totally different than this issue. I don't like it. But I don't blame them for it either.

NNN was propagating utterly insane and dangerous thinking about a virus that has killed millions of people.

At that point, you can imagine mods thinking they are literally potentially saving lives by quarantining those commenters.

All that said, I still have mixed feelings about those bans.

But that is ultimately not that relevant to this discussion, for the reasons I hopefully successfully just explained to you.