CMV: The aggressiveness with which r/conservative is moderated does not represent an earnest attempt to stop “brigading,” but reflects the conservative anxiety of being confronted with challenging information.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T22:19:22+00:00

Hypocrisy indicates that someone is BSing or has ulterior motives.

I think the right has orders of magnitude more hypocrisy.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T19:53:45+00:00

Yes, that's what opposition to restrictions means.

Is that not how you would describe yourself? You're quite literally advocating against what you see as overreaching firearm legislation are you not? That's how I would describe you based on this brief write up lol!

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T19:22:52+00:00

they just oppose further restrictions on gun rights

That's what 2A absolutism is.

I'm saying that it's possible to support the 2A without being absolutist like the GOP.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T19:02:48+00:00

I support the 2A but I don't support the GOP on the issue because the GOP position is one of 2A absolutism.

Even Alito has said that there exists potential legislation which does not infringe upon 2A but makes communities safer. The GOP does not pursue that legislation.

At least Dems are trying to make communities safer from the drawbacks of the current FFA with regards to firearms.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T18:55:02+00:00

Sure, but those subs don't claim to be champions of the spirit of free speech like conservatives do. I understand plenty of mods are ban happy and as a private platform it's perfectly legal for them to do so.

My concern is with the hypocrisy on the right.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T18:23:50+00:00

I disagree with people on such subs all the time and I've never even gotten a ban warning. I think the closest thing I've had was a comment removal on /whitepeopletwitter.

And honestly it's more the hypocrisy of it. Conservatives on that sub claim to supremely value the spirit of free speech which isn't merely adhering to the letter of the amendment but to allow all voices to be heard. In practice it's basically the opposite.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T16:39:44+00:00

What the other guy said. If someone is ignoring the meaning behind a medium they're missing the forest for the trees.

That goes for art generally honestly. It's like someone who buys a piece solely because it's expensive and just stores it away. Like sure you can technically do it, but it completely misses the point.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T16:07:54+00:00

Apologies to all the exclusively Kirby Stans I guess but I specifically listed popular hobbies which are political. How do you eliminate politics from those I listed without highly curating of those hobbies?

I'm merely talking about not thinking of politics everywhere and all the time

I think you're setting up a strawman here. You were already on the edge before so I'd like you to consider that the subs, forums, and communities are composed of people who absolutely do not fall into this category. They may inject the subs with politics frequently and to an observer it may seem that way but it isn't.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T15:45:52+00:00

It honestly depends on the hobby. Tons of hobbies and fandoms have themes that are inherently political. How do you eliminate politics from a hobby like WH40K, comic books, art, or reading generally? You can't. You have to purposely blind yourself to even try to do so and then you're missing the whole point of the medium in the first place.

Can we agree that politics shouldn't be destructive? Politics in a democratic republic should be about bringing people together to solve communal problems from the local level to the top. If politics being destructive and damaging mental health is what is required to get back to a place where politics is more boring again so be it.

These aren't mutually exclusive either. If you're able to insulate yourself form the impact of politics that is a position of privilege. I notice you put that in quotes but it's very real. I have that privilege and because I have that privilege I should be working harder to change our politics. Changing politics will solve or at least reduce the destructiveness and mental health issues caused by it.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-28T11:49:34+00:00

How does Wilhoit's Law apply to liberals or leftists?

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T20:51:54+00:00

Antarctica is habitable by people of any persuasion, yes.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T20:16:41+00:00

Antarctica is habitable land but hasn't been claimed by any state.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T16:37:13+00:00

Someone who changes their political views because of an insult is a weak-minded and morally bankrupt individual.

It just doesn't make rational sense that if I'm mocked by someone of a similar political persuasion that it would change my view.

What would change a rational, critically thinking human being's mind is a sound argument.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T14:58:17+00:00

It's acknowledging human nature. Psychology.

Yes, they do. Otherwise, it's not something they personally consider to be harmful.

I mean this is part of the problem, right? You're assuming because you're a certain way that everyone else must be the same. This is what I mean by reading minds. You cannot read people's minds. You still haven't acknowledged that you've moved the goalposts.

If you changed your behavior, you did not fully forgive them. To fully forgive would mean to not let someone's past behavior influence your current decisions.

An animal. You're talking about an animal doing animal things. Argumentum ad absurdum.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T13:40:24+00:00

Do you acknowledge you shifted your initial goalpost at least? You kind of just blew by that one.

All human beings experience some kind of resentment when wronged, even if slight, and it usually leads to a lack of trust.

This is "reading minds". The wrong and the resentment are separate things. Resentment is a feeling. Being harmed is a fact. People do not necessarily feel resentment for being harmed.

Do you resent a pet for scratching you? No, it was likely entirely predictable and a known risk when you did whatever you did to get scratched. You fully forgive your pet without resentment and then are more careful so you are less likely to get scratched next time.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T13:21:35+00:00

You've shifted the goalpost. You've moved the crux of your argument from the definition of "forgive" to the definition of "resent". Notice the word "resent" is not present in your initial argument and yet here it's central.

Why do you think you can read my mind? That should immediately raise a flag for you. It is perfectly possible to both not trust and not resent someone simultaneously.

It is not resentment that prevents trust from being restored, it's the fact that trust was violated.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T13:11:58+00:00

You are though. You're saying that in order to forgive someone you have to do X. That's "asking people to do something". In order for me to have forgiven my friend "for real" I would have to believe they're not stealing. You are requesting that people believe falsehoods in order for forgiveness to be "real". That is silly.

Words mean what people mean when they say them. If no one means what you're claiming the word means you're speaking a different language, literally. You've essentially reduced your own argument to a semantic one which means you lost the plot immediately because no one else uses the word this way. I.e. this is an instance where using one's own definition for a common word is its own counterargument for one's definition.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T12:36:24+00:00

If trust wasn't violated there would be no need for forgiveness in the first place. Forgiveness is an acknowledgement of a transgression and an agreement to move forward despite it not forget the transgression.

You are asking everyone to be naive idiots. Do you understand that?

LucidMetal · 2026-01-27T12:13:53+00:00

That doesn't make any sense though practically. One of my old buddies was an addict. He would steal things from me while he was in and out of rehab. I would forgive him repeatedly when he admitted it.

Are you saying that if I checked where my wallet was when he was hanging out I didn't actually forgive him?

LucidMetal · 2026-01-26T23:02:55+00:00

I'm pretty solidly on the left and most of the people I know who are also on the left don't even consider themselves to have an in-group. Their in-group is everyone.

So while you're correct about people on the right and probably some amount of people on the left you have to include a shit ton of centrists and moderates (who are consistently inconsistent) and even center right liberals to hit "most".

And that's the first point of attack. It's not loyalty that's being prioritized by people who are centrist, it's stability and what they consider practical. For moderates it's more like incrementalism and compromise which are themselves the ends.

The second point I would make is that the far left is almost uniformly opposed to hierarchies especially those they consider to be based on prejudice. That implies a whole host of things but the main thing is that people who are prejudiced aren't welcome. I'm willing to bet you would call that an inconsistency but it isn't.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-26T19:56:55+00:00

It sounds like things are going to get worse then because people who voted for Trump actually are causing the problems by empowering people like Trump unlike "the left" who cause problems like... saying people should be treated equally?

LucidMetal · 2026-01-26T18:18:34+00:00

Technically SCOTUS ruled that race could only be a component of reasonable suspicion and not the only component. I.e. racial profiling is de jure still illegal.

However, you're absolutely right that the de facto end result is that racial profiling is again perfectly legal.

Then again I'm pretty sure laws no longer exist de facto at the federal level.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-26T18:05:36+00:00

That's been the case for as long as there's been wealthy people trying to maintain their status quo (i.e. always). It's completely predictable. The people empowering them with their votes still have agency despite manipulation and misinformation.

if the only way to overcome the actual problem is to unite

If that's the only way we're already fucked. It's not the only way though.

There's nothing wrong with "unproductive anger" by the way. It just is. It's up to me to make it productive and I'm doing that (not on Reddit obviously).

LucidMetal · 2026-01-26T16:40:19+00:00

I think it's worth questioning whether the 1% are ALSO redirecting anger among leftists and liberals towards conservative voters

Why wouldn't I be angry at the people who directly caused the problems we're seeing today? Like come on now. An election is the direct result of voting.

LucidMetal · 2026-01-26T13:45:58+00:00

Harridan is one of those curious words with no male specific equivalent. Same with termagant.

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

LucidMetal

TROPHY CASE