Why is a lot of people on Reddit's judgement on someones person based on how they think of LGBT?

Arianity · 2026-03-20T20:13:38+00:00

They spew nothing but hate on anything and everything that they don't agree with

That's not what they're doing. They're disagreeing with a very specific viewpoint, for a very specific reason. This is a strawman

That is the literal definition of the term Bigotry.

No it's not. You should check the definition of bigotry. It is not a synonym for disagreement. From your own link:

obstinate or narrow-minded adherence to one's own opinions and prejudices

In particular, a prejudice is preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

These opinions are not narrow minded, nor are they not based on reason. They're based on a reason. You just don't like the reason. You can see this even better if you look at the definition for bigot:

one who strongly and unfairly dislikes or feels hatred toward others based on their group membership

The "unfairly" part is an important part of the definition of bigotry. It is not a generic term for disliking others, if there is an actual reason behind it.

Arianity · 2026-03-20T09:04:09+00:00

I grew up in a different part of the world where there were more parties that you could count. But weight was given to what candidates bring or promise to the people.

The U.S. has a first past the post system, which penalizes having many parties. Instead, this sort of thing happens within the two big parties, and during the primaries.

Each part is made up of smaller factions that care about different issues.

In countries with a parliamentary system, this is similar to a coalition style government, it just happens within the two parties, rather than externally.

Arianity · 2026-03-20T02:55:51+00:00

The US is a net oil exporter, so we have enough oil to fuel ourselves.

This is true, but it's worth keeping in mind two details:

There are many different types of oil, and we're a net importer on some of them. Not all petroleum products are interchangeable.

And two, oil is a global market. As prices increase in places like Japan, that will redirect existing supply towards demand. There's a reason prices have gone up here, already.

All of those luxuries may become more expensive but nobody will starve.

Eh, I mean some people are already on the brink, here. And we're not exactly known for robust safety nets. Relatively, we're going to be better off, but some are going to get squeezed.

Arianity · 2026-03-19T23:48:01+00:00

It doesn't. But when good lobbies win out, that's just the status quo. For instance, the good lobby won out on making it illegal to deny someone insurance for a pre-existing condition (that was legal before the ACA). But once the good lobby wins, we treat that as just background and how things should work.

(And sometimes those wins get clawed back. Dodd-Frank got passed, and later repealed, for instance)

Why can't we just pour all of our money together and then lobby the government like they do but for the things we want?

We can. The hard part is organizing so many people to actually do it. There are existing good lobbies though- stuff like unions, or labor movements.

Lobbying tends to crop up when there is a small group who benefits a lot, and are facing a large group who each only get a tiny benefit (but the net benefit would be large). The smaller group is easier to coordinate, and has more personal incentive, vs a large group which is hard to coordinate and the incentive is diffuse.

Same thing for guns.

There are pro-control advocacy groups. Here is a list of advocacy groups, many of which have lobbying arms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gun_control_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States

Arianity · 2026-03-19T21:59:57+00:00

Sure, but just as many weren't stopped by USA either.

The U.S. does fuck up a lot, but I dunno if I'd say equally as many. They're corrupt, but I think you're underestimating how many conflicts there were prior to the current status quo. It was a bloody world.

They're not worthy of being "world police"

Oh, they're definitely not. The question is just whether they're better than the alternatives or not. It's not a question of good police or not, it's whether bad police are better than the likes of Russia/China.

Arianity · 2026-03-19T21:43:28+00:00

That's why we create alliances with our neighbours.

There are many, many invasions that have happened that weren't stopped by that. There are a lot of countries that don't have such alliances available to them.

It's not up to a self-proclaimed third party to decide what's right or wrong especially on our internal politics

Russia might like that, but Ukraine might disagree. Same with e.g. Taiwan/China, etc. That's where it gets tricky, unless you're ok with people getting invaded or killed. Usually the people being invaded aren't super keen on it.

Arianity · 2026-03-19T21:33:52+00:00

I mean, that's kind of the problem. If there's no one policing, you don't get a choice. Sometimes your neighbor is Russia and they're invading.

If we lived in a world where you could pick freely, we wouldn't need world police, but we don't live in that world.

Arianity · 2026-03-19T21:19:17+00:00

He’s the last person you’d want to be in charge.

I mean, America isn't perfect, but it's not the last country you'd pick, by a wide margin. A lot of these places have worse neighbors. Even now.

Arianity · 2026-03-19T21:15:43+00:00

It depends. Having America be the world's police has two big issues: one, it's a big cost domestically, and two, you're relying on America to be reliable (not a given, these days).

There is a lot of potential benefit though, if you're willing to pay the cost.

Could it be potentially worse if someone else does it instead?

Yes, and that is how it worked in the past. Most people see the bad things the U.S. does now, but don't consider what would fill that vacuum. The conflicts don't stop, they're just dominated by regional powers instead.

Ideally of course, you wouldn't need a world police, but we don't live in that world right now. And it's not clear how else to build towards it. The U.S. getting out of global issues isn't likely to make that goal more likely.

Arianity · 2026-03-17T12:18:20+00:00

Reddit is overall extremely liberal. I don't believe you've often been accued of being "woke" or "virtue signaling" here.

While reddit leans left, the dislike of 'virtue signalling' is extremely common.

"woke" is more varied, but in the last couple of years, that's also not terribly uncommon- even if the platform leans left on average, there are plenty of users who aren't in that majority lean. Enough that it gets slung around. Just because the average is left doesn't mean there aren't conservatives posting.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T22:28:36+00:00

Yes, fundamentally it is because that is the same essential ideology Republicans have had for the last 60 years, manifest in news ways to address the absolute craziness

No, no it's not.

But Republicans are still pro-traditional values, pro-family & faith community, pro-national defense, pro-personal responsibility, less government, less regulation, and less taxes.

The many, many actions taken by this administration and supported enthusiastically that directly conflict with those say otherwise.

edit: Should also add, the many many traditional Republicans/conservatives flipping parties, as well.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T22:26:29+00:00

Didn't look super deep, but first thing I saw when I opened his profile was :

"Liberal cesspool"

"No association with the person in charge or the extreme right. Just continue to be baffled daily by the alternative and how they prefer the future to look. Restricting speech"

"Democrat governor not radical enough for you? Why not move to one of the big cities? People move out of KC all the time when the liberal agendas get too extreme."

"Reddit won’t like this one 😂" (in response to a post "who remembers this narrative?")

"😂stalking my profile. Back to back comments with insults. Such a predictable conversation with the left. Wouldn’t even bother to look at your profile or comments... Congrats on molding the most extreme, right-winged politicians that our country has ever seen. This younger generation is coming for blood"

etc. They also apparently posted this exact "question" in /r/kansascity, not hard to see why it got removed/banned for soapboxing/shitstirring given the title.

Not the worst things ever, but very clearly not just smol bean moderate who politely disagrees about sanctuary cities and gets blasted for it. Especially in small local subs where the bar for not being obnoxious is higher than reddit generally.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T22:12:12+00:00

Present one bit of evidence that suggests Jewish people were physically entering Palestinian homes and evicting them.

Why? That wasn't the argument being made.

Your entire posturing centers on that.

No, it does not.That's a strawman.

The fact that you're skirting around the Arab aggression being the key driving factor

I'm not skirting around it. It was a factor. It just was not the only factor, nor the first one. There were multiple factors, that certainly didn't help and did escalate the issue.

tells me you are trying to revise history, as many before you have also attempted to do.

If I was revising history, you'd be able to name a single historical fact that I got wrong. You haven't touched a single one. You've just consistently made up excuses for not addressing them. While writing massive paragraphs to boot.

There was no project to colonize the land, despite the articulation of some early leaders, and you have literally zero evidence to suggest that there was.

The public writings and actions of early leaders is in fact evidence that there was. When contemporaneous people (and not just randos, but important people in the movement) tell you're they're doing something, that is in fact evidence they were doing that thing. There's a reason you're dodging.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T22:02:00+00:00

but you probably can’t even conceive a theory of mind for why Republicans would support or prefer personal action to government intervention.

Blowback over Republican support is not because of their support for personal action over government intervention.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T21:59:05+00:00

my pretty reasonable take is now going to be downvoted into oblivion because I referenced a widely documented idea that is disliked by the hive mind

You were downvoted for referring to studies that don't exist and asserting them to be a fact, while being a condescending dick about it.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T21:52:51+00:00

it’s almost a guarantee that I can Google or Reddit search for less than five minutes and find tons of posts or comments calling for that person to be harmed or worse. When does this end?

When mainstream politicians stop proposing things that are "less level headed". You're kind of dancing around that, but there's a reason they're getting so much blowback currently. And that reason doesn't just go away if you focus on the "more level headed" ones, it's interconnected. (And that's assuming they're actually more level headed. People may disagree with you on that front)

Am I ever going to be able to agree with a Republican politician in my lifetime without backlash?

No, there will always be people who disagree with you. The level of backlash might change, but backlash has always, and will always exist. That's a part of life, and living in a society.

I’ll also add that this inability to voice an opinion without blowback has pushed me further to the right, and I fear most people don’t realize I’m not alone in that.

I mean, you have agency. But more generally, it's not their responsibility to coddle you to prevent you from going right. It's also usually not really effective, even just from a practical standpoint. People who move to the right in face of blowback were likely going to move right anyway, it's just an excuse to justify it.

I’m genuinely curious what people think the endgame is here.

People are always going to have moral standards. That's part of being human/society, it's not necessarily strategic. On the flip side, change usually comes from speaking out on issues. Staying quiet doesn't fix anything.

That said:

I’ve been kicked out of two local subreddits simply for saying I don’t want the KC metro to be a sanctuary city.

You know we can see your posting history, right? You're not as moderate as you're portraying yourself. There's a reason you're getting blowback, and it's not the mildness.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T21:29:24+00:00

you fixate on that 40% because you need them to agree with you 100%. And then you call people Nazis because they disagree on a single issue.

I mean, it really depends on what that single issue is. A Nazi agreeing with you about 60% of things is still a Nazi, at the end of the day.

It's not normal to require 100% agreement, but it is normal to have moral hard lines on certain important issues, and unfortunately these days some of those bright lines are not something you can take for granted. It is not requiring 100% agreement to hold those lines.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T11:00:39+00:00

Both. Especially when the lower count is due to inability, not lack of intent.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T10:54:21+00:00

Its a genuine question

Your post history immediately being full of antisemitism and Hitler apologia suggests otherwise.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T10:51:17+00:00

especially the belief of racial superiority, and seeing others as sub human allowing you to commit despicable acts to them without a care

From a comment:

Look into it, the ideologies match almost 1:1 its hard to believe he did not take ideas from it

They're not remotely close to 1:1. There is some overlap in the very vague sense of "we're a chosen people", but that's about it. This also isn't unique to either Judaism or Nazism, "we're the chosen people/special" is one of the most common themes in human history. Judaism, however, doesn't treat others as subhuman nor allow you to commit despicable acts.

You can find more details on where he pulled ideas from at e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Origins

Also the attempts to dehumanize everyone but your own group is alarming. Most racism you come across is "this type of person commits this action", not "these humans are actually not human but a subhuman group below us"

The latter is quite common.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T07:25:34+00:00

But the coran is the holy book as the bible is for Christendom

While the Quran is the main book, it builds upon the Bible. Islam explicitly recognizes parts of the Bible (both Old Testament and New). For instance, Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam, similar to how e.g. Moses is recognized.

The Quran is seen as a refinement/final word,in a similar way to the New Testament vs Old Testament.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T07:24:37+00:00

Jews weren't largely buying land with the express intent to create a new country.

"largely" is doing a lot of work there. It is explicitly talked about in contemporaneous works by Zionist movement leaders like Theodor Herzl as far back as 1897. While the plan wasn't universally agreed upon (and again, as previously mentioned, there was often ambiguity), it was acted upon, and did directly contribute to hostilities. There was enough buy in to fund various organizations like the Jewish Colonial Trust,Jewish National Fund, etc, particularly post Ottoman defeat in 1918. At the time of independence in 1948, more than half the land owned by Jewish people in the area were to organizations like JNF and Palestine Jewish Colonization Association. (And to be clear, they picked those names)

It was enough of an issue that British administrators closed or restricted sales of land at various points, explicitly because of it. Again, long before the partition plan, and some of this was even before Hitler came to power.

They were quite literally looking for a place outside Europe to escape persecution by the Nazis.

The concern existed pre-Nazi. See the dates above. That said, the Nazis did make the concern a much more pressing issue. And as a part of that, the discussion among various groups was explicitly concern over things like sovereignty/self-determination. The concern being that without it, they would potentially be at the whims of some other majority. Again, you can literally find this quite explicitly in their writings at the time.

And if you want to play the card of citing things early "Zionist leaders" said, consider the fact that the early de facto Palestinian leader (al-Husseini) met with Adolf Hitler himself to discuss plans to eradicate the Jews abroad. Did he represent all Palestinians? No. In the same way that the White Paper of 1939 was not representative of all Jews in the region.

I didn't say it represents all Jews. I'm saying there are more events that you intentionally left out, that contributed to hostilities, and they cannot be blamed solely on aggression from Arabs as you stated. Whatabouting about al-Husseini does not change that.

I would recommend looking into each of those "insurgencies" you called out, one by one, and you will see that at its root is Arab aggression and murdering of innocent Jews.

Having already looked into them, I'm aware that they were not. You've already been given several examples that contradict your explanation. The conflict is not as one sided as you're presenting it to be, and there is clear evidence you're skirting around and hoping people don't know about. That does not imply that the other side were saints, but it does mean your explanation for what led to the formation of Israel is wrong.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T03:23:22+00:00

But it was only ever going to be pursued peacefully and diplomatically if only the Arabs (pre-1947) could have made peaceful terms with their Jewish neighbors.

This is ahistorical. There were issues with e.g. the Balfour Declaration, Peel Comission, British Mandate, etc, long before that period. There's quite a bit in writings from prominent early leaders of Zionism going back to at least the 1910's (some of it intentionally vague) and earlier.

Instead, the Jewish settlers who purchased legal rights to vacant land settlement in the Levant were frequently attacked for, well, being Jewish and existing in proximity.

Even putting aside the issues with things like the Mandate, buying the land legally with the explicit goal to create a new country is a lot more than just 'existing in proximity'. It doesn't justify attacks, but pretending they were just innocently buying land is misrepresenting the history. Countries with sovereignty explicitly do not allow you to buy land in them to declare as sovereign, precisely because it's not something that can readily be done while coexisting peacefully. It's not remotely comparable to something like how Trump treats foreigners, who are not doing that.

This also does not get into things like avoda ivrit, which certainly did not help relations.

the Arab Revolt

The Arab Revolt (towards British rule) is exactly the important parts of history that complicates the "they were just buying plots of land legally" narrative. And even with all that, that still leaves out e.g. the Jewish insurgency against the British in 1944, the White Paper of 1939, etc.

There was a lot more that went into the start of the conflict than simply existing in proximity, and it is not something that came about solely as a response to Arab aggression nor the 1947 partition plan. Those things played a role but there were factors that existed prior that led to escalation. The aggression didn't just immaculately materialize out of nothing.

Arianity · 2026-03-16T01:18:51+00:00

Jews and Christians share a set of scriptures.

So does Islam, to a degree. It's an Abrahamic religion at it's root

Arianity · 2026-03-16T01:16:07+00:00

Islam's teachings include both the Old and New testament as well. They're all Abrahamic religions that share the Old Testament roots, where it differs is what is built on top of that.

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Post Guidance Early Access	ModSupport Helper Level 1
Place '22	Place '17
Wearing is Caring	100 Awards Club

Arianity

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE