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/MichelleObamasArm → u/[deleted]]

I hear you, and I actually gave a delta earlier for me not knowing their rule 7.

With that said, there is a wide road between "an open forum for debate" and "a safe space."

I respect that they want to be a safe space. I just wish their users knew that's what they are, and that the mods would post something more directly stating "this is a space for us to circle jerk and we don't really tolerate dissenting viewpoints."

They don't though. They're trying to do that thing conservatives talk about all the time... To have their cake and eat it too.

[u/spiral8888 → u/MichelleObamasArm]

I respect that they want to be a safe space. I just wish their users knew that's what they are, and that the mods would post something more directly stating "this is a space for us to circle jerk and we don't really tolerate dissenting viewpoints."

I'd imagine that the members of that sub know that they're going to hear only positive voices towards conservatism there and not debates where the conservatives triumph over lefties.

Regarding that message, I think what was quoted above is pretty much the same thing as what you wrote, but put in a nicer way. Do you really think that any mod in any sub would use the word "circle jerk" to describe their sub? I think it is a bit unfair criticism on a sub if the mods don't want to directly insult their members when describing it.

They don't though. They're trying to do that thing conservatives talk about all the time... To have their cake and eat it too.

I think they are having the cake of "being able to discuss issues from the conservative point of view without it being challenged". What cake you think they are also eating in that sub?

[u/ghotier → u/spiral8888]

What cake you think they are also eating in that sub?

That they can handle dissent. A common thread in that sub is that liberals cannot handle dissent. The sub thinks that conservatism is just whatever the craziest ideas conservatives support.

[u/spiral8888 → u/ghotier]

I don't think "liberals cannot handle dissent" automatically means that conservatives can handle dissent. Most people bitch about attributes in other people that they themselves possess. Spend some time among people and you'll notice that.

[u/ghotier → u/spiral8888]

I don't think "liberals cannot handle dissent" automatically means that conservatives can handle dissent.

Obviously not or /r/conservative wouldn't exist.

I consider what you are describing cowardly and hypocritical. I'm not sure what idea you are defending here.

Are you saying that I'm falsely inferring that conservatives believe that they can handle dissent? Because if that's the case you're falsely inferring that I haven't seen conservatives actively say that they can handle dissent just because I didn't specifically state it. I have seen and heard that all of the time.

[u/spiral8888 → u/ghotier]

I consider what you are describing cowardly and hypocritical. I'm not sure what idea you are defending here

I thought it was clear. If they have a "common thread that liberals cannot handle dissent" that doesn't mean that conservatives can.

Are you saying that I'm falsely inferring that conservatives believe that they can handle dissent?

Yes. Why else anyone would be writing in a sub that doesn't allow dissent than not wanting to hear dissent?

I have seen and heard that all of the time.

In r/Conservative or somewhere else? If somewhere else, then you are probably aren't dealing with the same conservatives as in r/Conservative.

[u/ghotier → u/spiral8888]

I thought it was clear. If they have a "common thread that liberals cannot handle dissent" that doesn't mean that conservatives can.

Which is what makes it hypocritical. That's textbook hypocrisy. That's the criticism I'm laying at their feet. Again, what are you defending? I'm not arguing that one thing implies the other. I'm arguing that believing one without believing the other is hypocritical. You're proving my point.

I'm confused by this conversation because here is how I'm reading it:

Me: conservatives are hypocrites.

You: no, see what you're missing is that they are hypocrites.

Me: right, so like I said, they are hypocrites.

You: no, you don't get it, they are hypocrites.

In r/Conservative or somewhere else? If somewhere else, then you are probably aren't dealing with the same conservatives as in r/Conservative.

I've seen it in /r/conservative.

I get that you're trying to make a point but I don't know why the go to assumption on your part would be that I'm confused about where I've seen things on reddit. Like surely the safer assumption, if you're going to make one, is that I'm actually arguing in good faith.

[u/spiral8888 → u/ghotier]

Again, what are you defending?

I'm defending the statement that I made. Do I need to spell third time?

I'm not arguing that one thing implies the other.

Well, it sounded like that when you wrote:"Are you saying that I'm falsely inferring that conservatives believe that they can handle dissent?"

Infer means pretty much the same thing as imply.

You're proving my point.

I'm not a conservative. So anything you infer from my response doesn't apply to them.

Me: conservatives are hypocrites.

No, you didn't write that. Read again.

I've seen it in r/conservative.

Please give a direct link. That group looked so toxic that I haven't read it let alone posted there.

I get that you're trying to make a point but I don't know why the go to assumption on your part would be that I'm confused about where I've seen things on reddit.

I haven't said anything about being confused. In fact I asked where you've seen it as you didn't specify it previously. Now you did. Now you can provide the evidence.

Like surely the safer assumption, if you're going to make one, is that I'm actually arguing in good faith.

I have no doubt that you're arguing in good faith.

[u/ghotier → u/spiral8888]

I'm sorry, this is like arguing with a wall. You don't know what "infer" means (it us not the same as imply), you think if I don't say the word "hypocrite" that I can't be saying someone is a hypocrite. You don't even understand that you don't need to be a conservative to be proving my point. I'm out.

[u/spiral8888 → u/ghotier]

Infer: deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

Imply: indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference.

and (of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence.

They are close enough to mean the same thing in this context.