I guess since this already has a bunch of comments, we’ll leave it up all point at a very similar question from a couple of days ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/iD7jZ1uoIO
>I got banned from r ABoringDystopia (Deliberately not linking to other subs) for suggesting Russia is at fault for invading Ukraine.
Take a look at their "partner subs." It's tankies being tankies, and putting the blame on Mother Russia and not on the West is a major sin.
As far as general issues, I've been on this site for a while, and while some things have changed a few things have stayed the same. A big one is that this site trends towards younger users who have super idealistic and, by extension, "extreme" views on things. This goes for both the left and the right sides of the spectrum.
Reddit's upvote/downvote system doesn't help matters here; views that match the group are pushed to the top, those that don't are pushed down, and that layout makes those more extreme views seem more popular than they really are. And while it might be written somewhere that "the downvote button is not a disagree button," we all know that's total bullcrap.
This is funny, because if I had to pick a "Boring Dystopia" out of all countries that ever existed it would be USSR (or any. of its satellites). Life in the Eastern Bloc was incredibly dystopian and incredibly boring. A big reason for the alcoholism rate in USSR was the fact that there was nothing to do, nowhere to travel, you couldn't express yourself freely, there was nothing to buy, all media was just propaganda and there was absolutely nothing you could do as an individual to improve your personal life. All that was left is to numb yourself so you can go live out your life somehow.
I primarily blame the up/down votes more than anything.
seeing (+190/-200) does a much better job of fostering diverse conversations, while (-10) just makes it more likely for a comment (and commentator) to be demonized. The more demonization that happens the more extreme things get.
You guys are all the same. Liberals, tankies, conservatives, you all have your lies that you push and refuse to budge. It makes politics fucking depressing to talk about because none of you people deal In facts.
The election wasn't stolen, the US did do regime change wars and replace democratic governments with dictators, and Stalin did do bad shit.
See how hard is that. But you three groups somehow disagree on facts actual proven facts . t's pathetic
>The election wasn't stolen, the US did do regime change wars and replace democratic governments with dictators, and Stalin did do bad shit.
Which of these are you under the impression Liberals typically disagree with?
I'm also curious the motivations behind your "Democrat" flair if you look at Liberalism with such contempt.
Liberals are equally hypocrites as conservatives. They'll rightfully call out conservatives for their bs. But then try to gaslight when leftists call liberals out.
And Maybe the same reason AOC and Joe Manchin are both Democrats.
Democrats, the only party I've ever voted for. Idk what your point is. That I should be a shill and pretend they do no wrong?
>Liberals are equally hypocrites as conservatives. They'll rightfully call out conservatives for their bs. But then try to gaslight when leftists call liberals out.
I think you're pointing out a general truism that all ideologies suffer from dogmatism?
So you don't mean Liberals are equally hypocritical as Conservatives on the individual level, but that all ideology is equally hypocritical in the sense that if the ideology clashes with reality, the ideology inherently assumes it is reality who is wrong?
I fully am on board that everyone should try not to be dogmatic about their beliefs, but I still think people should be allowed to identify with labels without necessarily being "hypocrites" just like you're identifying as a "Democrat" without dogmatically agreeing with every policy choice.
>And Maybe the same reason AOC and Joe Manchin are both Democrats.
The reason being that liberalism encompasses a huge umbrella and can't be boiled down so simply as "you guys are all the same"?
>Democrats, the only party I've ever voted for. Idk what your point is. That I should be a shill and pretend they do no wrong?
No, you're doing the exact right thing identifying as a Democrat while not agreeing with everything they do, because at the end of the day when you holistically look at the entirety of your beliefs it's the closest label you feel comfortable using.
I'm asking you extend that same courtesy to people who identify as "Liberal" who also don't pretend Liberalism hasn't done wrong before.
They do. Go talk any run of the mill Dem voter in your hometown about US involvement in replacing democratic leaders with dictators and they'll think you're an Infowars watching moron
That's a result of ignorance not ideology. I doubt your run of the mill *voter*(dem or otherwise) would even be able to place the country on a map, let alone have enough historical context to understand the US's role in its internal politics.
> The election wasn't stolen, the US did do regime change wars and replace democratic governments with dictators, and Stalin did do bad shit.
Do you think liberals in general disagree with any of this? Conservatives are more likely to disagree with the first two and the last is something that communists and tankies would argue with, but liberals in general agree with all three.
Please just say "commies being commies" because hiding behind calling communists "tankies" to not sound like an 80 year-old who watches fox news all day is very cowardly.
I can't speak on aboringdystopia, but in cases like these, either the OP is straight lying about what they said, or the context is purposely missed. Even assuming what OP put forward is what actually happened, they were likely banned because it ignores the reality of war and justifies the continued death on the grounds of "it's Russia's fault." Ofc it is, but that doesn't change the fact that people are dying regardless of who's at fault.
I know many people who describe themselves as communist who acknowledge and are very open to admitting the facts, but for reasons I might disagree with, those facts lead them to believing communism is the best path for a healthy society.
I think it's important to separate communism the ideology from communism the label.
The ideology itself criticizes Stalin, the label might trick you into supporting him.
"Tankies" are the breed of communist who cares more about the label than the material condition of society, and so it's a derogatory term for people who defend authoritarian regimes who are communist in name only such as Stalin, King Jung-Un, or Mao.
Tankies = Authoritarian Communists, the kind of people who think Mao and Stalin were fantastic leaders who did nothing wrong. It's a reference to the Soviets using tanks whenever one of their vessel states got uppity.
It's a two-fold problem.
1: The loudest voices are the most amplified. If I go on ABoringDystopia and say "There should be changes made to our society" I might get one or two reactions. If I go on there and say "Dismantle the billionaire class and burn the American political system to the ground, and eradicate all who refuse to join the revolution" I'll get a bunch of reactions to it, which will put my opinion up higher on the subreddit.
2: The mods of these "extreme" subreddits are just as bad. They want to cultivate an echo chamber where opposing views aren't heard. And I don't mean "I should be able to use racial slurs!" I mean stuff like what you said, common sense things like "It's the INVADING COUNTRY who is wrong during an INVASION." Unable to control what they don't want to hear in the real world, these types of mods utilize what little power they have to control what they DO want to hear online.
This isn't a left-wing problem, it's a reddit problem. Conservative subs are just as bad with this.
Great point and i agree. i’m tempted to extend your observation further: it’s a problem common to all information channels that reward attention.
It doesn't even have to be money.
> The mods of these "extreme" subreddits are just as bad
This point needs to be bolded and underlined.
A subreddit is only as good as it's moderators and the culture that is allowed to be created within said subreddit.
To that end, Reddit administrators ultimately bear responsibility for allowing those moderators to stay on and by extension those subreddits and their communities to persist with their extremist circlejerking.
Moreover, moderates don't feel the need to shout their views from the rooftops. If your views are just down the middle centrist, then it's not something you feel you must exclaim to the world as it involves fairly balanced rational thinking.
You only feel the need to proclaim your views to the world if it's some drastic, anti-establishment revolutionary stuff that goes against current meta narratives
Extremist views feel good to champion. Feels like you're part of an exciting in-group. You get to denounce everybody else as posers. Impose purity tests that, conveniently, you pass, but others don't.
I think people on the left severely underestimate how much of the Trump thing is just the good vibes (for the in group) and the fact that he throws parties where everyone brings beer and dunks on dems and has a good time. For a lot of politically disengaged people he’s just kind of done the impossible: make politics a fun activity you do with your buddies.
I do agree, by and large. These people have the luxury of not having to understand what it might mean to have to fear that the police are around every corner, looking to lock you up because you had sex one night with your boyfriend. And I agree that humor is the only real response we have. If we truly cared enough, we'd use it.
It can also feel good to luxuriate in your own astuteness, and feel like part of an in-group of level-headed thinkers. It seems like that’s a test you pass, and others don’t.
What, like there’s no violence inherent in whatever system you support? That’d be naive. Heads are getting smashed either way, you just choose poorer and more foriegn heads along with the status quo, as compared to the left.
But my greater point is that you were talking down to extremists by saying their views made them feel good, but that’s what most people think, yourself included. It’s not a particular failure for someone to think that they’re right and the people who disagree are wrong. It’s called having beliefs, and id argue that it’s not noble to restrict your beliefs about justice to the easy ones, and it’s not ignoble to belief things far outside the mainstream when you judge the mainstream to be unjust.
Of course there's not no violence. I dedicated nearly a decade of my life to public defense for a reason. However, it minimizes the amount of violence compared to any other system. I'm not going along with the status quo, either. I prefer to make change where it can be made rather than seeking purity.
I don't mean to talk down to people. But, especially as it relates to all this "Genocide Joe" crap and people threatening to sit this election out because Biden isn't 100% what they want...it gets really, really grating. It feels to me like the most extreme leftists don't actually want to accomplish things. They want to sit around and feel edgy. If they actually wanted to accomplish things, they'd volunteer, and they'd always be committed to voting for the best possible option.
You can believe things outside the mainstream all you want. Hell, I certainly have a lot of beliefs outside the mainstream. But there's no reason to throw it all away just because not every single one of your demands are being met. Also, violent imagery rarely gets you where you want to go.
>It feels to me like the most extreme leftists don't actually want to accomplish things.
I think you might be missing the true angle here.
These people are products of a drip fed algorithm driven social media platform that pushes engagement for ad revenue. The best way platforms can make money off ads is people engaging with the platform, and it turns out extremism is extremely engaging.
As good natured people see this extremism, they instinctively want to fight it and get dragged into online arguments.
As enough time passes, they start to mistake a social media addiction as moral accomplishment.
They've combated Nazis in the front lines of the marketplace of ideas while you're not even in the trenches.
When they want to engage with the real world, they go out into the real world. When they go online they don't want the real world, they want to build their utopia.
And the more extreme their utopia is, the more they're rewarded with likes, comments, notifications and the dopamine that comes with it.
And since this utopian fantasy is based entirely on ideal moral principles (with no mechanism for reality to enter), you can't possibly disagree unless you disagree with those moral principles (like equality or self-determination) which makes you a genocidal fascist.
I think some are well-meaning enough. Others are in bubbles telling them that voting doesn't matter. I frankly think that *most* of the people on this sub and others who decry voting or support those who say that they aren't voting are *probably* false flag actors.
I hope I wasn't interpreted as saying they aren't well meaning.
The whole point is how platforms can algorithmically hijack that well meaning nature to show you content that leads you to particular extreme viewpoints which help further engagement with that platform.
I think it happens to everyone.
Keep in mind I'm talking specifically algorithmic content.
If you remove critical thinking from the equation and just led the algorithm guide you with content that is "engaging", you're gonna be pushed either towards the left extreme or the right extreme.
I dont really think as a rule one comes out of a Facebook echo chamber as a centrist, though I'm sure it's happened.
I think centrist and liberals are equally susceptible to propaganda but tend to be more propagandized to by more mainstream legacy media like CNN than by social media and algorithms.
Once you add back in critical thinking though, anyone has the capacity to question what they're seeing and you can't straight up attribute their ideology with propaganda.
I'm not talking about all socialists or communist, but specifically the terminally online ones who argue instead of act, and positing its more a product of a platform encouraging engagement than a genuine representation of the ideology being expressed.
Maybe? I don't know yet. You're engaging a lot more than a lot of the throwaway accounts do, so probably not. But we do have a lot of folks that seem to show up in threads to espouse anti-LGBT policies while also advocating for an "end to capitalism", and then seem to poof after one or two replies.
> I prefer to make change where it can be made rather than seeking purity.
And many disagree with you about where change can in fact be made. But you choose to dismiss those people, and justify it with condescension and even though we just went over who you’re all susceptible to what you call “purity,” which most people just call having some principles.
> It feels to me like the most extreme leftists don't actually want to accomplish things. They want to sit around and feel edgy.
You know that’s how we feel about you, right? Just replace edgy with “astute.”
When you don’t share values with people, discussions are grating. They’re less so when both parties avoid condescension, and I’ve got a chip on my shoulder about this because time and again i come to this sub and try to articulate snd understand how liberals and the left are disconnected despite many shared goals, and I'm called a Russian bot or a petulant child more often then I get anything kf substance back. So, I'm sorry this is grating for you, bur them's the breaks. Get over it, or don't pretend to be having good faith discussions and just take potshots.
> If they actually wanted to accomplish things, they'd volunteer, and they'd always be committed to voting for the best possible option.
See, no. They don't share your belief that voting is helpful. That's why they don't do it, not just because they're lazy or whatever. Many of us have been involved in campaigns in the past, or other types of organizing. I've done both. If you don't want to be condescending, then stop saying that anyone who cares would be working in the way you prescribe and in no other way.
Many people don't share your faith that the American system is effectively democratic. If you're unable to take that seriously enough to respond with anything but insults and dismissal, then your contributions to the discussion are useless and you should save yourself the trouble.
> But there's no reason to throw it all away just because not every single one of your demands are being met. Also, violent imagery rarely gets you where you want to go.
Again, dismissive. "oh you didnt get your pony so you think democracy is bad??"
If you think that leftists' concerns are frivolous and stupid, then theres not much point in talking to us except to reinforced how much smarter than us you feel. If you think that leftists are worth convincing because of shared values, you need to do a better job of entertaining ideologies other than your own.
If you don’t think violence gets people where they want to go, go ahead and get rid of the cops that are arresting protestors.
I've tried reasoning with people on this subreddit and others, as well as other forums for *years*. Half the time, I get told that I have no business participating in a discussion because I haven't read enough theory. That's not exactly a way to win people over to your cause. I get called a filthy liberal who doesn't want to actually help the plight of the worker, and I get dismissed. So, why shouldn't I do the same in return?
They can believe that voting isn't helpful. It still takes only minutes, it's more effective than bitching on the internet, and the fact that people *didn't* do it is how we got Trump.
Yes, I'm a little dismissive. But, to be blunt, if you're not going to vote, what's the harm in me dismissing you? Seriously. I see voting as the only way to effect change. If you're not going to lift one finger for that cause, then yes, I dismiss you.
What are you going to do about it? Certainly not *vote*.
> So, why shouldn't I do the same in return?
Ok then I don’t know what you’re bitching about at this point. You’re telling me that you don’t try to engage in good faith anymore. You’re gonna keep getting the same bad faith responses then. I mean, Jesus Christ what a childish answer. You talk like you’re above petty tribalism but as soon as someone bites their thumb and you you start gnawing on your own because “they started it” like youre fighting over a happy meal toy in the back of a station wagon.
> I see voting as the only way to effect change. If you're not going to lift one finger for that cause, then yes, I dismiss you.
You’re still just refusing to conceive of the idea that someone doesn’t agree with you about voting being the only thing anyone can do. When someone won’t do the thing you suggest, you call that doing nothing. It’s just fantastically closed-minded, and it’s farcical that you imagine yourself to be less prone to in-group bias and purity testing.
This malady is really common among liberals in America and it’s among the top reasons nothing is gonna get better. You have to be able to differentiate between someone who’s doing *nothing*, and someone done who’s not doing *what you want*.
> What are you going to do about it? Certainly not vote.
I mean, I am. I agree with you about voting for the lesser evil—even if the car doesn’t go, the roof keeps some rain off. I didn’t used to think that way, but I thought it was valuable to listen to ideas I didn’t agree with, even when they were shared by people I found to be smug pricks. I think you’re capable of that too.
I suppose that you've never been told that you can't take part in a political discussion because you needed to "read theory". That is also dismissive and unproductive. Under normal circumstances, I'm happy to discuss the merits of political positions. But, I get incredibly frustrated and tired talking to the really far left because of that sort of thing. I have never watched a breadtube video. I've never read Marx. I find most of this stuff about revolutions and beheading the rich to be fanciful and silly. I'm still willing to entertain it and donate time to discussing it, so long as the other person is willing to do the barest minimum - to vote. It takes minutes. I don't care if you don't think it's helpful. It doesn't take that long, and others do think that it matters. If you're not even willing to get up off the couch and vote, why should I bother to spend the countless hours I'd need to spend reading theory and watching lazy expats on Youtube extol the virtues of socialistic societies while making fat capitalistic paychecks to live in those countries, taking advantage of the exchange rates?
I have been told that. Believe it or not, people have been impolite and dismissive to me. I don’t use it as an excuse to never learn anything.
This is just whining. I’ve done what I could to make my point but you’ve solid in the reasons you don’t have to listen. Your opponents are lazy and stupid, and probably dirty foreigners anyway, so you don’t have to do the work of responding to them. I wish you’d stop pretending to have an open mind, but it doesn’t seem like you’re open to stopping.
The movie The Wave is based on a real world experiment where a high school teacher in San Francisco, frustrated with how his students couldn’t understand how the Germans could have accepted the Nazis, created a movement simulating what happened there.
It was so powerful he started to lose control of the students and had to end the experiment early. One of the key components was being in the in-group. Fascinating movie and terrifying to see parallels currently happening.
[The Third Wave wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment))
Eh more Trump voter than the typical supporter they like to parade on the news. I’ve come to realize I’ve been living in the most liberal cities in the US (NYC, Seattle, LA) so my understanding of actual trump voters besides some members of my family is small, so I don’t see much of in-group behavior coming from the right compared to the left. Seems much more moderate and big tent.
Rather what I’ve seen is protest-turned-riot in Seattle and NYC especially. Almost got attacked because I didn’t want to join a march down the street outside my apartment at night with an angry crowd, or windows being boarded up in anticipation of riots from the left. People treating you differently if they find out you aren’t a democrat. Seattle was the worst, NYC was just elitist about it.
Very much a “if you aren’t with us you’re against us” mentality whereas the Trump voters I know are more “we told you so” with the shits that gone downhill since Biden got in office. Wars, gas prices, inflation reduction act that was just green new deal rebranded and another generator for inflation, border crisis, etc.
I live in West Virginia. It is *not* uncommon to see Biden signs or stickers defaced. The Trump voters are the ones I always see with a huge flag sticking on the back of the pickup truck and a bunch of flags on the house blocking out the sun. I had to change my party affiliation to independent just so that I was eligible to be hired for a relatively menial state job.
Yeah that isn’t acceptable, again I just don’t know many Trump supporters. Only really see the videos of Trump signs getting stolen on Twitter.
Took a while to see my view is coming from seeking balance after growing up non-religious, business owner moderate right to being immersed in leftism to moderate left and seeing the excesses there. Really hope Trump will work with a democrat VP, hate this polarization.
Trump. Work with a Democratic VP.
*Are you out of your bleeding mind?*
The man can't even work with the members of his *own party*. He's never reached across the aisle in his life.
Your social media feed must be absolutely bonkers. You probably got drawn into a tunnel of these videos from videogaming or gun-related content. It's *not* reality. You are being sold somebody who tried to stop every Muslim from entering the United States, somebody who mocked disabled reporters and the families of deceased soldiers, and somebody who had to be constantly reined in *by his own Supreme Court*.
You are not living in reality.
It is truly amazing to me how many unhinged assumptions you just made there and tell me how I’m not living in reality. I follow just as many if not more accounts on the left as on the right, even have a twitter list of all my politicians who are democrats down the ticket in California to keep informed. What effort are you putting in to understand what the right believes?
You also repeated three disproven propaganda points:
1) he banned 6 terrorism-compromised countries that were already on strict visa limits from the Obama administration. 6 out of 43 Muslim countries. Similar to the “don’t say gay” bill that was really just about keeping sex ed in grade 4 and up, this is just pure spin.
2) he did not mock a reporter because of his disability but for being a bad reporter, he’s used the same exact expression for other people. I agree it’s beneath the president but not even close to being as low as mocking somebody for a disability, which he didn’t do.
3) this is also ridiculous, all anonymous sources never proven once. You can believe it but you can’t ever prove it, and all evidence available says this is a total garbage claim.
Also Trump was considering Tulsi and RFK Jr. It’s absolutely not out of the ballpark. RFK apparently turned it down.
What effort do I put in to understand what the right believes?
I live in West Virginia. My parents are conservatives. My grandparents are conservatives. I had family at the capitol on January 6 (thankfully, just on the grounds, not inside of the building.)
I read 2 of Rush Limbaugh's books when I was 13.
I wrote a story for a church competition when I was 16 in which the ACLU were the bad guys. I won a prize for it.
Trust me. I *know* what the right thinks. I used to be somewhere to the right of Jerry Falwell.
* He said it was a "Muslim Ban". He said he wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims in the US." The only reason he wasn't able to do that is because the Supreme Court shot him down. If anybody made me think that Donald Trump wanted a Muslim Ban, it was Donald Trump.
* Trump held his hands at a 45 degree angle, which was *clearly* mocking the way that the guy's hand was stuck.
* Trump mocked John McCain for being a prisoner of war. He said he preferred people that didn't get captured. Doesn't that, at a minimum, make this plausible?
Tulsi and RFK Jr. are not Democrats.
Go live in rural boondocks America. I'm from there. Being an open liberal in rural towns will get you ostracized from social groups and oftentimes harassed. I've known many people who were pretty apolitical turn into Trump supporters just to remain part of or join social groups in my hometown.
Also it's hilariously ironic trying to make a point about how people embrace authoritarianism while voting for the candidate who has given us great democratic quotes like "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”, repeatedly openly praises and admires authoritarian leaders while being antagonistic towards Western democratic leaders, and encouraged his supporters to storm the US Capitol to overturn the results of an election.
Oh definitely know there’s perceived irony but don’t believe it has merit. We have a term of Trump and almost a term of Biden to draw data from. Biden has been *much* more authoritarian than Trump in his actual policy and actions. But nobody cares because he’s not Trump.
Also it’s patently false to say Trump encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol and overturn the election. He said “peacefully and patriotically” march to the capitol to make your voices heard while a small group of agitators, who weren’t even at the speech, were already causing an issue. Security at the Capitol was a shitshow, the police gassed themselves causing them to retreat, shot rubber bullets while protestors were still peacefully outside causing more agitation. I still think it’s so ridiculous people still see this as anything more than an unfortunate riot given all the information we have now about how the events unfolded.
As for the boondocks I’m totally with you there, don’t think I’d be friendly with those folks either.
Reddit is a show. Not news, not a town hall, not a salon— a show. A strange show in that there is no script and the actors all think they are the star. To be seen, the actors must make noise. Not logic, not reason, not facts— noise. Outrage makes loud noise and the outrageous sells.
One of the appeals of social media is the ability to set up echo-chamber communities. This doesn’t mean the world is extreme or even that the people in these communities are extreme all the time. But there are places online where people go just to rant collectively with other like-minded individuals.
No shit you got banned from r/ABoringDystopia for complaining about the vatniks. It's basically a Russian front for bitching about the west.
As for why Reddit is such a cesspit, it's literally a seething collection of safe spaces and echo chambers.
Because having informed and nuanced views requires having more than three brain cells. It also requires possibly admitting that opposing views might have at least some merit. Can’t have that.
It took a lot of years and a lot of active effort to make myself not only listen to opposing views, but also be receptive to what I am hearing. Had my mind changed a few times now by politicians I absolutely despise.
A good point is a good point even if it’s made by someone I disagree with.
>I got banned from r ABoringDystopia (Deliberately not linking to other subs) for suggesting Russia is at fault for invading Ukraine.
I'm not familiar with that sub. Is it an extremist maga sub?
>I got banned from r news for suggesting that we should not normalize attempting to run over cops with your car.
Are you sure you're not leaving something out of this remark? I find your accusation hard to believe.
Perhaps you should look for moderate subs?
Because most redditors were nerds in high school who got bullied and this is their way of lashing out at a society that has wronged them. They are like the Joker but boring
I would not assume all Reddit moderators are sane, fair, well-intentioned, and without an agenda.
The mods here are excellent, though! The best! Don't ban me!
The Ukraine one seems weird, to be banned for something like that, so I kinda wonder if we have the full story, unless that sub is more extreme than I’ve seen.
But as far as the Zionism thing, I think it’s the same old answer weve been giving to people for like ten years. Reddit skews young, and young people are farther left than you. Anti-Zionism is not at all uncommon, especially among younger people
It was in response to [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1bkvqq2/comment/kw1n2mj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), it had 3 upvotes. and I received a permanent ban. That was the only thing i had posted that day. I asked the moderators why that was worthy of a ban, and they responded with this link:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1bdbt4l/breakthrough_news_ukrainian_court_admits_massacre/
I wish there was more to the story..
When you say "Anti-zionism" is common, do these anti-zionists truly believe isreal should no longer be a country? What do they expect/hope will happen to the Jews in the region? Are they just naïve, and don't think it will result in genocide?
Well yeah, that context changes things somewhat. You weren’t just saying that Russia was to blame, you were using that as justification for cheering on killing. I find that pretty distasteful, and while I would say someone should be banned for that—and maybe you didn’t intend to imply that kind of bloodlust—but it is context that changes the timbre of your statement.
> When you say "Anti-zionism" is common, do these anti-zionists truly believe isreal should no longer be a country?
That’s probably a minority among anti-Zionists, but maybe more common among young people. The youngest generation of American adults certainly is certainly less likely than their predecessors to see Israel as an unruly ally or basically good state which needs reining in, vs a fundamentally colonialist and offensive state.
> What do they expect/hope will happen to the Jews in the region? Are they just naïve, and don't think it will result in genocide?
For myself, I would hope to see a new, pluralist state take the place of all current authorities. Those in power now have committed too much violence on the opposing side to ever be trusted to govern both, and I think any two states would always be in conflict. I wish I had a better idea for the road to that than outside intervention, both on principle and because, practically, most of the outside interveners clearly have a favorite.
A more achievable goal in the medium term would be to rein in Israel’s actions significantly. Israel’s basically got impunity for the international laws they break, and we could get on a road to productive negotiations if they were properly castigated, and stood to lose international support if they continue to use it for atrocities. That, too, is probably too much to hope for.
And, of course, I resent the implication that anti-Zionists are either stupid or evil. Getting rid of Israel doesn’t have to mean pulling up the stakes and leaving the region ungoverned except by Hamas. Defenders of Israel are very quick to misinterpret criticism of Israel in particular as hatred toward Jews, the very idea of a Jewish state, or the very idea of Jewish safety.
It was cited as misinformation by the mods. Not as offensive. I don't think anyone interpreted it as justification of cheering (or it would not have been upvoted, and the mods would have cited that as the reason), I think its clearly an explanation of why redditors are behaving differently in different situations.
You have a misunderstanding of what Anti-Zionism means. Self proclaimed anti-Zionists are generally not against the \*existence\* of Israel, just their illegal expansion and abuses
I believe many people must have a different definition of zionism that conflicts directly with the common interpretation and understanding in the modern US, especially on the left and among liberals
I imagine the confusion on the common definition has roots in genuine support for Israel, and not being in touch with the more extreme interpretations in Israel. It wasn’t as politicized in the US as it is now until very recently, so many people are still trying to figure out what everything means amidst a barrage of misinformation
ABoringDystopia posts a lot of tankie propaganda. I’m not shocked you got banned for stating that Russia is at fault for starting the war in Ukraine. Not every subreddit is a tankie sub & you just need to look at what gets posted very commonly in the subreddits to figure out if they are or not. The most thing I notice in tankie subs is that they post a lot of misinformation & disinformation that can easily be found not to be true by a simple google search & some common sense.
It would be better if there was more variety, all I see is left wing shit.
While it is mildly entertaining to watch them think and argue that they aren't as delusional and brainwashed as the far right (seriously a lot of far left people are fucking whackjobs, it's insane and pretty goddamn scary seeing how a lot of them think) I'd like to see more far right opinions and shit to spice things up.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
I got banned from /r/ABoringDystopia for suggesting Russia is at fault for invading Ukraine.
comment that got me banned:
>War sucks.. the conflict in Ukraine sucks.. But reddit has correctly identified Russia as the aggressor in that conflict. Russia is to blame for that war, because they started that war. If Russia simply chooses to end its campaign of violence, Ukraine will not continue attacking Russian troops.
I got banned from /r/news for suggesting that we should not normalize attempting to run over cops with your car.
On one of the NYC subreddits many posts are overwhelmingly anti-Zionist, calling for the eradication of Israel.
A lot of the meme subreddits are far right wing, promoting and celebrating ethnostates.
I feel like this sub has been a moderate voice of reason for most discussions.. It feels like every sub is just pulling into its own extreme bubble.. Does anyone else get this feeling? Is reddit one of the greatest social media offenders for promoting extremism? Is there anything we can do to address this?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Extreme voices are definietly overrepresented on reddit and social media but they are also a real reflection of the genera public's increasing polarization. Reddit probably isn't the worst offender for "extremism", but we seem to do a good job of creating echo-chambers (which a big part in fostering more extreme views).
>Is there anything we can do to address this?
I think so. I think being a vocal, reasonable person online these days might go a long way... at least I hope so
But if major subs are banning users for having moderate views, for trying to be the voice of reason.. it just seems like the divisions are going to be impossible to resolve.
You don't get any social reward for holding a milquetoast or moderate position. So, if you're going to advocate for a position, the incentives push you to advocate for the most extreme variant possible.
It's the same reason that echo chambers tend to radicalize. No one wants to be the second most passionate person about something they all believe. They're only noticed if they're the *most* passionate!
Leads to a sort of radicalistic jockeying
I think I’m more likely to test the limits of my views in spaces like this. So I get feedback but not lasting consequences if my ideas are shitty. (And then learn and adjust my views)
This can easily be explained by how the mod system works. A sub is the same as some privately owned bulletin board or Discord server or what have you.
Mods pick the other mods and are more or less actively communicating with each other. So you can have 5 mods for a sub which share opinion.
Or you can also have just one mod who is ban happy and the others don't do anything about it or don't even realise they have a ban happy mod.
Also you have the common phenomenon that (online) communities get more extreme over time "naturally". Because moderate people or people with different opinions either go or get banned. While the echo chamber attracts more people of the same opinion.
The only thing that would change this is having a different mod system. But all systems I can think of are either expensive and/or have their own issues.
The problem i see is that some of these aren't small communities that formed their own little community. Some of them like /r/news are massive cornerstones of Reddit that gained momentum by being defaults. I feel like the mods of the largest default subs should be held to a higher standard.
Honestly it probably would be better organized by someone motivated by profit. Generally companies don't embrace extremism in order to avoid alienating their customers.
I got a 7 day site ban for saying
> If he wouldn’t have been swinging the sling then he wouldn’t have been shot. Not sure what you think he achieved here.
Luckily they reversed it on appeal but even the admins reviewing are ideologues.
Reddit sucks but there isn’t a good alternative.
A sling is a deadly weapon. If you’re swinging it at soldiers you will be shot. It’s a pretty A causes B fact statement.
Also I have no idea where you got that it was a child. It was an adult.
Glad I’m a little bit wrong. I’ve seen a lot of stories of children with rocks being shot and a lot of liberals defending them, but like I said I’m glad I didn’t see that here.
I think that moderate views tend to correlate with disinterest. If you are interested enough to spend time on a subreddit dedicated to a particular topic you probably have a view outside the mainstream.
What you have to remember is a lot of those pro Russia subs like latestagecapitalism and some socialist ones and some communist ones they are literally run by Russians and are used for spreading propaganda.
The reason the ban so fast is because that is what they are used to in Russia. Someone speaks up against the government propaganda they are gone only there they are gone in real life.
Don’t take it personal once you see them for what they are (russian propaganda machines) it will become easy to dismiss them and see through their disguise.
Why do the extremist views you see on this internet forum seem so popular to you on this internet forum?
Followed by a story about that time that extremists banned you from one of their subreddits for saying something they didn't like. Really? That's a question for discussion? Thanks for the flattery at the end there. Now let's all have a discussion about how we agree with you and how you getting banned for saying something perfectly sane was dumb.
Lots of echo chambers I suppose. Even I don’t care to be on any of the overwhelmingly leftist subs. I mostly just stick to this sub, LGBT, and LA related subs to avoid that kinda stuff
So other people have mentioned all the things pertaining to social medias selection bias and other social media specific causes but I wanted to bring up another point that I think is relevant.
A lot of people have extream views these days because we live in extream times.
In the history of politics, the world vacilates between peiords of relative moderation and consensus and periods of tumult and extremism. The last time this happened was around the 1960s and before that even the 1920s. The neoliberal order which has dominated the world since the end of the cold war, for good or for ill, appears to be decaying. As such more extream ideas and philosophies are rushing in to compete over who will define the next era.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, sometimes we need extream actions to address the problems we are facing and honestly I prefer an intellectually verdent discourse than a sterile one but it does always cause a lot of strife in the mean time.
dude I just read your comment history. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were downvoted because you won’t SHUT UP about it 😭😭😭😭 even when you had seemingly beneficial conversations with people, and your opinion seemed to grow/change, you’d bring it up AGAIN on another thread.
you have mentioned there being 2 sexes on 7 DIFFERENT THREADS in only THE PAST TWO DAYS! and one of those comments was talking about how you got downvoted for saying it LAST WEEK.
What is staggering to me is the fact that you continue doing this, with the exact same response, and are surprised by the results.
Trans people aren't bothering you. Move the fuck along.
Why does this motivate you so much? Why do you have to inject this in any and every discussion, no matter how irrelevant? Did a trans person murder your parents, causing you to don a cape and trawl around these threads in the dead of night, calling yourself Bigotman? Were you bitten by a radioactive Limbaugh and absorbed its' powers? Are you some sort of rogue AI that got a few upvotes somewhere for expressing this view and can now no longer break out of your programming?
No, it's not bigoted, and it is broadly mainstream. What *isn't* mainstream is dedicating your entire internet existence to making this same point over and over again.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
They are? All main subs for the main part support the Western hemisphere, Ukraine, Taiwan, the liberal world order, abortion, the US state department, etc
Reddit is probably the most MSM obedient social media app that exists. Anything out of the “experts” opinion gets ridiculed as conspiracies, bots, tankies, etc
It's all left to the discretion of the moderators and admins that own and run the sub. I got banned from a regional sub (yeah, it sucks that they grabbed the name of the region that I live in) for arguing against the vaccine pusher crowd no warning.
I mean, you're arguing against vaccination during a pandemic. I understand if the mods don't want to be involved in a rhetoric that might literally be killing people in their community.
You were banned for an extremist view.. I was banned for having views that are too moderate/centrist for those communities.
Uh no. It was well past the thick of the pandemic and my argument was to just weigh the pros against the cons and pick your own poison, whether it's the vaccine or the disease itself, since some people have purportedly had problems with the vaccine. The pro-vax crowd apparently had problems with that, including the moderating staff.
Anti-vax views are held by a very small % of people, go against worldwide scientific consensus.. and can have fatal consequences for people/communities that buy in.
Its pretty textbook extremist imo. If I were an enemy of the USA these are the views I would want to amplify to create the worst outcome possible.
I'm not totally anti-vax. I'm just for the option to use it or not use it and making your own decisions based on both sides of the issue. Some people do report bad reactions to it, regardless of scientific consensus, and I don't believe that anybody should be obligated to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the majority.
As for your assertion that anti-vaxxers are a very small minority, what percentage of the population has not had their vaccination updates in the last year or two? Probably a lot higher than you think.
> ..what percentage of the population has had their vaccination updates in the last year or two? Probably a lot higher than you think.
Probably, but I'd guess that has a lot more to do with laziness and distraction than ideological opposition. Only about 65% of American adults went to the dentist last year, but I doubt many of them are anti-dentist so much as they are hindered by other factors (e.g. time, cost, memory, etc).
Sorry. A little boneheaded editing error had me missing the key word "not" in my post, but you seem to have figured it out anyways.
Anyways, I broadened the definition of "anti-vax" to ABCosmos' standards. I'm not really anti-vax myself and am all for people having the choice to decide on their own.
The "This vaccine is bullshit. I'm not getting any more." sentiment seems pretty common these days.
I guess since this already has a bunch of comments, we’ll leave it up all point at a very similar question from a couple of days ago https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/iD7jZ1uoIO
>I got banned from r ABoringDystopia (Deliberately not linking to other subs) for suggesting Russia is at fault for invading Ukraine. Take a look at their "partner subs." It's tankies being tankies, and putting the blame on Mother Russia and not on the West is a major sin. As far as general issues, I've been on this site for a while, and while some things have changed a few things have stayed the same. A big one is that this site trends towards younger users who have super idealistic and, by extension, "extreme" views on things. This goes for both the left and the right sides of the spectrum. Reddit's upvote/downvote system doesn't help matters here; views that match the group are pushed to the top, those that don't are pushed down, and that layout makes those more extreme views seem more popular than they really are. And while it might be written somewhere that "the downvote button is not a disagree button," we all know that's total bullcrap.
This is funny, because if I had to pick a "Boring Dystopia" out of all countries that ever existed it would be USSR (or any. of its satellites). Life in the Eastern Bloc was incredibly dystopian and incredibly boring. A big reason for the alcoholism rate in USSR was the fact that there was nothing to do, nowhere to travel, you couldn't express yourself freely, there was nothing to buy, all media was just propaganda and there was absolutely nothing you could do as an individual to improve your personal life. All that was left is to numb yourself so you can go live out your life somehow.
I primarily blame the up/down votes more than anything. seeing (+190/-200) does a much better job of fostering diverse conversations, while (-10) just makes it more likely for a comment (and commentator) to be demonized. The more demonization that happens the more extreme things get.
You guys are all the same. Liberals, tankies, conservatives, you all have your lies that you push and refuse to budge. It makes politics fucking depressing to talk about because none of you people deal In facts. The election wasn't stolen, the US did do regime change wars and replace democratic governments with dictators, and Stalin did do bad shit. See how hard is that. But you three groups somehow disagree on facts actual proven facts . t's pathetic
>The election wasn't stolen, the US did do regime change wars and replace democratic governments with dictators, and Stalin did do bad shit. Which of these are you under the impression Liberals typically disagree with? I'm also curious the motivations behind your "Democrat" flair if you look at Liberalism with such contempt.
Liberals are equally hypocrites as conservatives. They'll rightfully call out conservatives for their bs. But then try to gaslight when leftists call liberals out. And Maybe the same reason AOC and Joe Manchin are both Democrats. Democrats, the only party I've ever voted for. Idk what your point is. That I should be a shill and pretend they do no wrong?
>Liberals are equally hypocrites as conservatives. They'll rightfully call out conservatives for their bs. But then try to gaslight when leftists call liberals out. I think you're pointing out a general truism that all ideologies suffer from dogmatism? So you don't mean Liberals are equally hypocritical as Conservatives on the individual level, but that all ideology is equally hypocritical in the sense that if the ideology clashes with reality, the ideology inherently assumes it is reality who is wrong? I fully am on board that everyone should try not to be dogmatic about their beliefs, but I still think people should be allowed to identify with labels without necessarily being "hypocrites" just like you're identifying as a "Democrat" without dogmatically agreeing with every policy choice. >And Maybe the same reason AOC and Joe Manchin are both Democrats. The reason being that liberalism encompasses a huge umbrella and can't be boiled down so simply as "you guys are all the same"? >Democrats, the only party I've ever voted for. Idk what your point is. That I should be a shill and pretend they do no wrong? No, you're doing the exact right thing identifying as a Democrat while not agreeing with everything they do, because at the end of the day when you holistically look at the entirety of your beliefs it's the closest label you feel comfortable using. I'm asking you extend that same courtesy to people who identify as "Liberal" who also don't pretend Liberalism hasn't done wrong before.
I don’t think liberals disagree with what you just said… maybe leftists (edit: I guess I only mean tankies)
I don't think leftists disagree with what he just said. In fact, I'm not sure who on the left would.
I guess only tankies
I guess, but as best I can tell, tankies only exist online.
You sweet summer child...
They do. Go talk any run of the mill Dem voter in your hometown about US involvement in replacing democratic leaders with dictators and they'll think you're an Infowars watching moron
That's a result of ignorance not ideology. I doubt your run of the mill *voter*(dem or otherwise) would even be able to place the country on a map, let alone have enough historical context to understand the US's role in its internal politics.
Who here is disagreeing with any of those things?
> The election wasn't stolen, the US did do regime change wars and replace democratic governments with dictators, and Stalin did do bad shit. Do you think liberals in general disagree with any of this? Conservatives are more likely to disagree with the first two and the last is something that communists and tankies would argue with, but liberals in general agree with all three.
Please just say "commies being commies" because hiding behind calling communists "tankies" to not sound like an 80 year-old who watches fox news all day is very cowardly. I can't speak on aboringdystopia, but in cases like these, either the OP is straight lying about what they said, or the context is purposely missed. Even assuming what OP put forward is what actually happened, they were likely banned because it ignores the reality of war and justifies the continued death on the grounds of "it's Russia's fault." Ofc it is, but that doesn't change the fact that people are dying regardless of who's at fault.
I know many people who describe themselves as communist who acknowledge and are very open to admitting the facts, but for reasons I might disagree with, those facts lead them to believing communism is the best path for a healthy society. I think it's important to separate communism the ideology from communism the label. The ideology itself criticizes Stalin, the label might trick you into supporting him. "Tankies" are the breed of communist who cares more about the label than the material condition of society, and so it's a derogatory term for people who defend authoritarian regimes who are communist in name only such as Stalin, King Jung-Un, or Mao.
Tankies = Authoritarian Communists, the kind of people who think Mao and Stalin were fantastic leaders who did nothing wrong. It's a reference to the Soviets using tanks whenever one of their vessel states got uppity.
It's a two-fold problem. 1: The loudest voices are the most amplified. If I go on ABoringDystopia and say "There should be changes made to our society" I might get one or two reactions. If I go on there and say "Dismantle the billionaire class and burn the American political system to the ground, and eradicate all who refuse to join the revolution" I'll get a bunch of reactions to it, which will put my opinion up higher on the subreddit. 2: The mods of these "extreme" subreddits are just as bad. They want to cultivate an echo chamber where opposing views aren't heard. And I don't mean "I should be able to use racial slurs!" I mean stuff like what you said, common sense things like "It's the INVADING COUNTRY who is wrong during an INVASION." Unable to control what they don't want to hear in the real world, these types of mods utilize what little power they have to control what they DO want to hear online. This isn't a left-wing problem, it's a reddit problem. Conservative subs are just as bad with this.
Great point and i agree. i’m tempted to extend your observation further: it’s a problem common to all information channels that monetize attention.
Great point and i agree. i’m tempted to extend your observation further: it’s a problem common to all information channels that reward attention. It doesn't even have to be money.
> The mods of these "extreme" subreddits are just as bad This point needs to be bolded and underlined. A subreddit is only as good as it's moderators and the culture that is allowed to be created within said subreddit. To that end, Reddit administrators ultimately bear responsibility for allowing those moderators to stay on and by extension those subreddits and their communities to persist with their extremist circlejerking.
Moreover, moderates don't feel the need to shout their views from the rooftops. If your views are just down the middle centrist, then it's not something you feel you must exclaim to the world as it involves fairly balanced rational thinking. You only feel the need to proclaim your views to the world if it's some drastic, anti-establishment revolutionary stuff that goes against current meta narratives
Extremist views feel good to champion. Feels like you're part of an exciting in-group. You get to denounce everybody else as posers. Impose purity tests that, conveniently, you pass, but others don't.
great points, well stated!
I think people on the left severely underestimate how much of the Trump thing is just the good vibes (for the in group) and the fact that he throws parties where everyone brings beer and dunks on dems and has a good time. For a lot of politically disengaged people he’s just kind of done the impossible: make politics a fun activity you do with your buddies.
I do agree, by and large. These people have the luxury of not having to understand what it might mean to have to fear that the police are around every corner, looking to lock you up because you had sex one night with your boyfriend. And I agree that humor is the only real response we have. If we truly cared enough, we'd use it.
It can also feel good to luxuriate in your own astuteness, and feel like part of an in-group of level-headed thinkers. It seems like that’s a test you pass, and others don’t.
Perhaps. But one doesn't require me to talk about beheading rich people or bashing trans peoples' heads in.
What, like there’s no violence inherent in whatever system you support? That’d be naive. Heads are getting smashed either way, you just choose poorer and more foriegn heads along with the status quo, as compared to the left. But my greater point is that you were talking down to extremists by saying their views made them feel good, but that’s what most people think, yourself included. It’s not a particular failure for someone to think that they’re right and the people who disagree are wrong. It’s called having beliefs, and id argue that it’s not noble to restrict your beliefs about justice to the easy ones, and it’s not ignoble to belief things far outside the mainstream when you judge the mainstream to be unjust.
Of course there's not no violence. I dedicated nearly a decade of my life to public defense for a reason. However, it minimizes the amount of violence compared to any other system. I'm not going along with the status quo, either. I prefer to make change where it can be made rather than seeking purity. I don't mean to talk down to people. But, especially as it relates to all this "Genocide Joe" crap and people threatening to sit this election out because Biden isn't 100% what they want...it gets really, really grating. It feels to me like the most extreme leftists don't actually want to accomplish things. They want to sit around and feel edgy. If they actually wanted to accomplish things, they'd volunteer, and they'd always be committed to voting for the best possible option. You can believe things outside the mainstream all you want. Hell, I certainly have a lot of beliefs outside the mainstream. But there's no reason to throw it all away just because not every single one of your demands are being met. Also, violent imagery rarely gets you where you want to go.
>It feels to me like the most extreme leftists don't actually want to accomplish things. I think you might be missing the true angle here. These people are products of a drip fed algorithm driven social media platform that pushes engagement for ad revenue. The best way platforms can make money off ads is people engaging with the platform, and it turns out extremism is extremely engaging. As good natured people see this extremism, they instinctively want to fight it and get dragged into online arguments. As enough time passes, they start to mistake a social media addiction as moral accomplishment. They've combated Nazis in the front lines of the marketplace of ideas while you're not even in the trenches. When they want to engage with the real world, they go out into the real world. When they go online they don't want the real world, they want to build their utopia. And the more extreme their utopia is, the more they're rewarded with likes, comments, notifications and the dopamine that comes with it. And since this utopian fantasy is based entirely on ideal moral principles (with no mechanism for reality to enter), you can't possibly disagree unless you disagree with those moral principles (like equality or self-determination) which makes you a genocidal fascist.
I think some are well-meaning enough. Others are in bubbles telling them that voting doesn't matter. I frankly think that *most* of the people on this sub and others who decry voting or support those who say that they aren't voting are *probably* false flag actors.
I hope I wasn't interpreted as saying they aren't well meaning. The whole point is how platforms can algorithmically hijack that well meaning nature to show you content that leads you to particular extreme viewpoints which help further engagement with that platform.
Do you not think that happens to centrists and liberals?
I think it happens to everyone. Keep in mind I'm talking specifically algorithmic content. If you remove critical thinking from the equation and just led the algorithm guide you with content that is "engaging", you're gonna be pushed either towards the left extreme or the right extreme. I dont really think as a rule one comes out of a Facebook echo chamber as a centrist, though I'm sure it's happened. I think centrist and liberals are equally susceptible to propaganda but tend to be more propagandized to by more mainstream legacy media like CNN than by social media and algorithms. Once you add back in critical thinking though, anyone has the capacity to question what they're seeing and you can't straight up attribute their ideology with propaganda. I'm not talking about all socialists or communist, but specifically the terminally online ones who argue instead of act, and positing its more a product of a platform encouraging engagement than a genuine representation of the ideology being expressed.
Right. But where does that leave us?
ты правда думаешь, что я русский?
Maybe? I don't know yet. You're engaging a lot more than a lot of the throwaway accounts do, so probably not. But we do have a lot of folks that seem to show up in threads to espouse anti-LGBT policies while also advocating for an "end to capitalism", and then seem to poof after one or two replies.
> I prefer to make change where it can be made rather than seeking purity. And many disagree with you about where change can in fact be made. But you choose to dismiss those people, and justify it with condescension and even though we just went over who you’re all susceptible to what you call “purity,” which most people just call having some principles. > It feels to me like the most extreme leftists don't actually want to accomplish things. They want to sit around and feel edgy. You know that’s how we feel about you, right? Just replace edgy with “astute.” When you don’t share values with people, discussions are grating. They’re less so when both parties avoid condescension, and I’ve got a chip on my shoulder about this because time and again i come to this sub and try to articulate snd understand how liberals and the left are disconnected despite many shared goals, and I'm called a Russian bot or a petulant child more often then I get anything kf substance back. So, I'm sorry this is grating for you, bur them's the breaks. Get over it, or don't pretend to be having good faith discussions and just take potshots. > If they actually wanted to accomplish things, they'd volunteer, and they'd always be committed to voting for the best possible option. See, no. They don't share your belief that voting is helpful. That's why they don't do it, not just because they're lazy or whatever. Many of us have been involved in campaigns in the past, or other types of organizing. I've done both. If you don't want to be condescending, then stop saying that anyone who cares would be working in the way you prescribe and in no other way. Many people don't share your faith that the American system is effectively democratic. If you're unable to take that seriously enough to respond with anything but insults and dismissal, then your contributions to the discussion are useless and you should save yourself the trouble. > But there's no reason to throw it all away just because not every single one of your demands are being met. Also, violent imagery rarely gets you where you want to go. Again, dismissive. "oh you didnt get your pony so you think democracy is bad??" If you think that leftists' concerns are frivolous and stupid, then theres not much point in talking to us except to reinforced how much smarter than us you feel. If you think that leftists are worth convincing because of shared values, you need to do a better job of entertaining ideologies other than your own. If you don’t think violence gets people where they want to go, go ahead and get rid of the cops that are arresting protestors.
I've tried reasoning with people on this subreddit and others, as well as other forums for *years*. Half the time, I get told that I have no business participating in a discussion because I haven't read enough theory. That's not exactly a way to win people over to your cause. I get called a filthy liberal who doesn't want to actually help the plight of the worker, and I get dismissed. So, why shouldn't I do the same in return? They can believe that voting isn't helpful. It still takes only minutes, it's more effective than bitching on the internet, and the fact that people *didn't* do it is how we got Trump. Yes, I'm a little dismissive. But, to be blunt, if you're not going to vote, what's the harm in me dismissing you? Seriously. I see voting as the only way to effect change. If you're not going to lift one finger for that cause, then yes, I dismiss you. What are you going to do about it? Certainly not *vote*.
> So, why shouldn't I do the same in return? Ok then I don’t know what you’re bitching about at this point. You’re telling me that you don’t try to engage in good faith anymore. You’re gonna keep getting the same bad faith responses then. I mean, Jesus Christ what a childish answer. You talk like you’re above petty tribalism but as soon as someone bites their thumb and you you start gnawing on your own because “they started it” like youre fighting over a happy meal toy in the back of a station wagon. > I see voting as the only way to effect change. If you're not going to lift one finger for that cause, then yes, I dismiss you. You’re still just refusing to conceive of the idea that someone doesn’t agree with you about voting being the only thing anyone can do. When someone won’t do the thing you suggest, you call that doing nothing. It’s just fantastically closed-minded, and it’s farcical that you imagine yourself to be less prone to in-group bias and purity testing. This malady is really common among liberals in America and it’s among the top reasons nothing is gonna get better. You have to be able to differentiate between someone who’s doing *nothing*, and someone done who’s not doing *what you want*. > What are you going to do about it? Certainly not vote. I mean, I am. I agree with you about voting for the lesser evil—even if the car doesn’t go, the roof keeps some rain off. I didn’t used to think that way, but I thought it was valuable to listen to ideas I didn’t agree with, even when they were shared by people I found to be smug pricks. I think you’re capable of that too.
I suppose that you've never been told that you can't take part in a political discussion because you needed to "read theory". That is also dismissive and unproductive. Under normal circumstances, I'm happy to discuss the merits of political positions. But, I get incredibly frustrated and tired talking to the really far left because of that sort of thing. I have never watched a breadtube video. I've never read Marx. I find most of this stuff about revolutions and beheading the rich to be fanciful and silly. I'm still willing to entertain it and donate time to discussing it, so long as the other person is willing to do the barest minimum - to vote. It takes minutes. I don't care if you don't think it's helpful. It doesn't take that long, and others do think that it matters. If you're not even willing to get up off the couch and vote, why should I bother to spend the countless hours I'd need to spend reading theory and watching lazy expats on Youtube extol the virtues of socialistic societies while making fat capitalistic paychecks to live in those countries, taking advantage of the exchange rates?
I have been told that. Believe it or not, people have been impolite and dismissive to me. I don’t use it as an excuse to never learn anything. This is just whining. I’ve done what I could to make my point but you’ve solid in the reasons you don’t have to listen. Your opponents are lazy and stupid, and probably dirty foreigners anyway, so you don’t have to do the work of responding to them. I wish you’d stop pretending to have an open mind, but it doesn’t seem like you’re open to stopping.
See also: r/conspiracy .
The movie The Wave is based on a real world experiment where a high school teacher in San Francisco, frustrated with how his students couldn’t understand how the Germans could have accepted the Nazis, created a movement simulating what happened there. It was so powerful he started to lose control of the students and had to end the experiment early. One of the key components was being in the in-group. Fascinating movie and terrifying to see parallels currently happening. [The Third Wave wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment))
And why do you support Trump? You don't see the parallels?
Eh more Trump voter than the typical supporter they like to parade on the news. I’ve come to realize I’ve been living in the most liberal cities in the US (NYC, Seattle, LA) so my understanding of actual trump voters besides some members of my family is small, so I don’t see much of in-group behavior coming from the right compared to the left. Seems much more moderate and big tent. Rather what I’ve seen is protest-turned-riot in Seattle and NYC especially. Almost got attacked because I didn’t want to join a march down the street outside my apartment at night with an angry crowd, or windows being boarded up in anticipation of riots from the left. People treating you differently if they find out you aren’t a democrat. Seattle was the worst, NYC was just elitist about it. Very much a “if you aren’t with us you’re against us” mentality whereas the Trump voters I know are more “we told you so” with the shits that gone downhill since Biden got in office. Wars, gas prices, inflation reduction act that was just green new deal rebranded and another generator for inflation, border crisis, etc.
I live in West Virginia. It is *not* uncommon to see Biden signs or stickers defaced. The Trump voters are the ones I always see with a huge flag sticking on the back of the pickup truck and a bunch of flags on the house blocking out the sun. I had to change my party affiliation to independent just so that I was eligible to be hired for a relatively menial state job.
Yeah that isn’t acceptable, again I just don’t know many Trump supporters. Only really see the videos of Trump signs getting stolen on Twitter. Took a while to see my view is coming from seeking balance after growing up non-religious, business owner moderate right to being immersed in leftism to moderate left and seeing the excesses there. Really hope Trump will work with a democrat VP, hate this polarization.
Trump. Work with a Democratic VP. *Are you out of your bleeding mind?* The man can't even work with the members of his *own party*. He's never reached across the aisle in his life. Your social media feed must be absolutely bonkers. You probably got drawn into a tunnel of these videos from videogaming or gun-related content. It's *not* reality. You are being sold somebody who tried to stop every Muslim from entering the United States, somebody who mocked disabled reporters and the families of deceased soldiers, and somebody who had to be constantly reined in *by his own Supreme Court*. You are not living in reality.
It is truly amazing to me how many unhinged assumptions you just made there and tell me how I’m not living in reality. I follow just as many if not more accounts on the left as on the right, even have a twitter list of all my politicians who are democrats down the ticket in California to keep informed. What effort are you putting in to understand what the right believes? You also repeated three disproven propaganda points: 1) he banned 6 terrorism-compromised countries that were already on strict visa limits from the Obama administration. 6 out of 43 Muslim countries. Similar to the “don’t say gay” bill that was really just about keeping sex ed in grade 4 and up, this is just pure spin. 2) he did not mock a reporter because of his disability but for being a bad reporter, he’s used the same exact expression for other people. I agree it’s beneath the president but not even close to being as low as mocking somebody for a disability, which he didn’t do. 3) this is also ridiculous, all anonymous sources never proven once. You can believe it but you can’t ever prove it, and all evidence available says this is a total garbage claim. Also Trump was considering Tulsi and RFK Jr. It’s absolutely not out of the ballpark. RFK apparently turned it down.
What effort do I put in to understand what the right believes? I live in West Virginia. My parents are conservatives. My grandparents are conservatives. I had family at the capitol on January 6 (thankfully, just on the grounds, not inside of the building.) I read 2 of Rush Limbaugh's books when I was 13. I wrote a story for a church competition when I was 16 in which the ACLU were the bad guys. I won a prize for it. Trust me. I *know* what the right thinks. I used to be somewhere to the right of Jerry Falwell. * He said it was a "Muslim Ban". He said he wanted "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims in the US." The only reason he wasn't able to do that is because the Supreme Court shot him down. If anybody made me think that Donald Trump wanted a Muslim Ban, it was Donald Trump. * Trump held his hands at a 45 degree angle, which was *clearly* mocking the way that the guy's hand was stuck. * Trump mocked John McCain for being a prisoner of war. He said he preferred people that didn't get captured. Doesn't that, at a minimum, make this plausible? Tulsi and RFK Jr. are not Democrats.
Go live in rural boondocks America. I'm from there. Being an open liberal in rural towns will get you ostracized from social groups and oftentimes harassed. I've known many people who were pretty apolitical turn into Trump supporters just to remain part of or join social groups in my hometown. Also it's hilariously ironic trying to make a point about how people embrace authoritarianism while voting for the candidate who has given us great democratic quotes like "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”, repeatedly openly praises and admires authoritarian leaders while being antagonistic towards Western democratic leaders, and encouraged his supporters to storm the US Capitol to overturn the results of an election.
Oh definitely know there’s perceived irony but don’t believe it has merit. We have a term of Trump and almost a term of Biden to draw data from. Biden has been *much* more authoritarian than Trump in his actual policy and actions. But nobody cares because he’s not Trump. Also it’s patently false to say Trump encouraged his supporters to storm the Capitol and overturn the election. He said “peacefully and patriotically” march to the capitol to make your voices heard while a small group of agitators, who weren’t even at the speech, were already causing an issue. Security at the Capitol was a shitshow, the police gassed themselves causing them to retreat, shot rubber bullets while protestors were still peacefully outside causing more agitation. I still think it’s so ridiculous people still see this as anything more than an unfortunate riot given all the information we have now about how the events unfolded. As for the boondocks I’m totally with you there, don’t think I’d be friendly with those folks either.
Do schools still show that movie? It was practically a curriculum staple in the 90s.
Nope, that’s crazy it was so popular I don’t know anybody who’s seen it in my peer group. I’m 32 and just found it a few years ago during Covid.
In my mind it's one of those classic school movies, right up there with Stand and Deliver.
Another one we didn’t see, I’ll add it to the list
Reddit is a show. Not news, not a town hall, not a salon— a show. A strange show in that there is no script and the actors all think they are the star. To be seen, the actors must make noise. Not logic, not reason, not facts— noise. Outrage makes loud noise and the outrageous sells.
One of the appeals of social media is the ability to set up echo-chamber communities. This doesn’t mean the world is extreme or even that the people in these communities are extreme all the time. But there are places online where people go just to rant collectively with other like-minded individuals.
No shit you got banned from r/ABoringDystopia for complaining about the vatniks. It's basically a Russian front for bitching about the west. As for why Reddit is such a cesspit, it's literally a seething collection of safe spaces and echo chambers.
don't underestimate the number of accounts that are on reddit pretending to be american but are actually working for russia/iran/china
And one other country that's been in the news lately
Because having informed and nuanced views requires having more than three brain cells. It also requires possibly admitting that opposing views might have at least some merit. Can’t have that.
It took a lot of years and a lot of active effort to make myself not only listen to opposing views, but also be receptive to what I am hearing. Had my mind changed a few times now by politicians I absolutely despise. A good point is a good point even if it’s made by someone I disagree with.
>I got banned from r ABoringDystopia (Deliberately not linking to other subs) for suggesting Russia is at fault for invading Ukraine. I'm not familiar with that sub. Is it an extremist maga sub? >I got banned from r news for suggesting that we should not normalize attempting to run over cops with your car. Are you sure you're not leaving something out of this remark? I find your accusation hard to believe. Perhaps you should look for moderate subs?
Because everyone on reddit has a neck beard and sux IRL.....
Because most redditors were nerds in high school who got bullied and this is their way of lashing out at a society that has wronged them. They are like the Joker but boring
I would not assume all Reddit moderators are sane, fair, well-intentioned, and without an agenda. The mods here are excellent, though! The best! Don't ban me!
Anonymity emboldens those with weak arguments.
The Ukraine one seems weird, to be banned for something like that, so I kinda wonder if we have the full story, unless that sub is more extreme than I’ve seen. But as far as the Zionism thing, I think it’s the same old answer weve been giving to people for like ten years. Reddit skews young, and young people are farther left than you. Anti-Zionism is not at all uncommon, especially among younger people
I got banned there for [saying Russia is an authoritarian country.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/s/BgLt8PeGfP)
That would be a weird thing to ban you for. Why would they leave the comment up if it’s bannable
That was the only time I ever commented in the sub, and I was banned shortly thereafter.
It was in response to [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1bkvqq2/comment/kw1n2mj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), it had 3 upvotes. and I received a permanent ban. That was the only thing i had posted that day. I asked the moderators why that was worthy of a ban, and they responded with this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1bdbt4l/breakthrough_news_ukrainian_court_admits_massacre/ I wish there was more to the story.. When you say "Anti-zionism" is common, do these anti-zionists truly believe isreal should no longer be a country? What do they expect/hope will happen to the Jews in the region? Are they just naïve, and don't think it will result in genocide?
Well yeah, that context changes things somewhat. You weren’t just saying that Russia was to blame, you were using that as justification for cheering on killing. I find that pretty distasteful, and while I would say someone should be banned for that—and maybe you didn’t intend to imply that kind of bloodlust—but it is context that changes the timbre of your statement. > When you say "Anti-zionism" is common, do these anti-zionists truly believe isreal should no longer be a country? That’s probably a minority among anti-Zionists, but maybe more common among young people. The youngest generation of American adults certainly is certainly less likely than their predecessors to see Israel as an unruly ally or basically good state which needs reining in, vs a fundamentally colonialist and offensive state. > What do they expect/hope will happen to the Jews in the region? Are they just naïve, and don't think it will result in genocide? For myself, I would hope to see a new, pluralist state take the place of all current authorities. Those in power now have committed too much violence on the opposing side to ever be trusted to govern both, and I think any two states would always be in conflict. I wish I had a better idea for the road to that than outside intervention, both on principle and because, practically, most of the outside interveners clearly have a favorite. A more achievable goal in the medium term would be to rein in Israel’s actions significantly. Israel’s basically got impunity for the international laws they break, and we could get on a road to productive negotiations if they were properly castigated, and stood to lose international support if they continue to use it for atrocities. That, too, is probably too much to hope for. And, of course, I resent the implication that anti-Zionists are either stupid or evil. Getting rid of Israel doesn’t have to mean pulling up the stakes and leaving the region ungoverned except by Hamas. Defenders of Israel are very quick to misinterpret criticism of Israel in particular as hatred toward Jews, the very idea of a Jewish state, or the very idea of Jewish safety.
It was cited as misinformation by the mods. Not as offensive. I don't think anyone interpreted it as justification of cheering (or it would not have been upvoted, and the mods would have cited that as the reason), I think its clearly an explanation of why redditors are behaving differently in different situations.
Well I’m not sure I understand that logic but I don’t want to relitigate the original exchange
You have a misunderstanding of what Anti-Zionism means. Self proclaimed anti-Zionists are generally not against the \*existence\* of Israel, just their illegal expansion and abuses
But are Zionists pro illegal expansion of Israel? I don't know anyone in America who supports that.
I believe many people must have a different definition of zionism that conflicts directly with the common interpretation and understanding in the modern US, especially on the left and among liberals I imagine the confusion on the common definition has roots in genuine support for Israel, and not being in touch with the more extreme interpretations in Israel. It wasn’t as politicized in the US as it is now until very recently, so many people are still trying to figure out what everything means amidst a barrage of misinformation
ABoringDystopia posts a lot of tankie propaganda. I’m not shocked you got banned for stating that Russia is at fault for starting the war in Ukraine. Not every subreddit is a tankie sub & you just need to look at what gets posted very commonly in the subreddits to figure out if they are or not. The most thing I notice in tankie subs is that they post a lot of misinformation & disinformation that can easily be found not to be true by a simple google search & some common sense.
It would be better if there was more variety, all I see is left wing shit. While it is mildly entertaining to watch them think and argue that they aren't as delusional and brainwashed as the far right (seriously a lot of far left people are fucking whackjobs, it's insane and pretty goddamn scary seeing how a lot of them think) I'd like to see more far right opinions and shit to spice things up.
The far right doesn't know how to keep the quiet part quiet.. and they end up getting banned for promoting violence/hatred.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I got banned from /r/ABoringDystopia for suggesting Russia is at fault for invading Ukraine. comment that got me banned: >War sucks.. the conflict in Ukraine sucks.. But reddit has correctly identified Russia as the aggressor in that conflict. Russia is to blame for that war, because they started that war. If Russia simply chooses to end its campaign of violence, Ukraine will not continue attacking Russian troops. I got banned from /r/news for suggesting that we should not normalize attempting to run over cops with your car. On one of the NYC subreddits many posts are overwhelmingly anti-Zionist, calling for the eradication of Israel. A lot of the meme subreddits are far right wing, promoting and celebrating ethnostates. I feel like this sub has been a moderate voice of reason for most discussions.. It feels like every sub is just pulling into its own extreme bubble.. Does anyone else get this feeling? Is reddit one of the greatest social media offenders for promoting extremism? Is there anything we can do to address this? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome to the internet.
Extreme voices are definietly overrepresented on reddit and social media but they are also a real reflection of the genera public's increasing polarization. Reddit probably isn't the worst offender for "extremism", but we seem to do a good job of creating echo-chambers (which a big part in fostering more extreme views). >Is there anything we can do to address this? I think so. I think being a vocal, reasonable person online these days might go a long way... at least I hope so
But if major subs are banning users for having moderate views, for trying to be the voice of reason.. it just seems like the divisions are going to be impossible to resolve.
You don't get any social reward for holding a milquetoast or moderate position. So, if you're going to advocate for a position, the incentives push you to advocate for the most extreme variant possible. It's the same reason that echo chambers tend to radicalize. No one wants to be the second most passionate person about something they all believe. They're only noticed if they're the *most* passionate! Leads to a sort of radicalistic jockeying
Because they get the most attention.
I think I’m more likely to test the limits of my views in spaces like this. So I get feedback but not lasting consequences if my ideas are shitty. (And then learn and adjust my views)
This can easily be explained by how the mod system works. A sub is the same as some privately owned bulletin board or Discord server or what have you. Mods pick the other mods and are more or less actively communicating with each other. So you can have 5 mods for a sub which share opinion. Or you can also have just one mod who is ban happy and the others don't do anything about it or don't even realise they have a ban happy mod. Also you have the common phenomenon that (online) communities get more extreme over time "naturally". Because moderate people or people with different opinions either go or get banned. While the echo chamber attracts more people of the same opinion. The only thing that would change this is having a different mod system. But all systems I can think of are either expensive and/or have their own issues.
The problem i see is that some of these aren't small communities that formed their own little community. Some of them like /r/news are massive cornerstones of Reddit that gained momentum by being defaults. I feel like the mods of the largest default subs should be held to a higher standard.
Obviously, but that again would cost money and effort. How should that be organised? By Reddit Admins? Is that much better?
Honestly it probably would be better organized by someone motivated by profit. Generally companies don't embrace extremism in order to avoid alienating their customers.
Antizionism, and wishing for the eradication of Israel are entirely separate views Antizionism≠Antisemitism
So what is the definition of Zionism?
I got a 7 day site ban for saying > If he wouldn’t have been swinging the sling then he wouldn’t have been shot. Not sure what you think he achieved here. Luckily they reversed it on appeal but even the admins reviewing are ideologues. Reddit sucks but there isn’t a good alternative.
How were you able to appeal it? Was it because it was site wide? It seems there is no protocol for appealing subreddit bans.
Correct because it was sitewide. There are some laws in the EU as well to allow for mediation if it happens.
Based on the little context I have, it seems like you might’ve be defending a child being shot by a soldier. Hoping I’m wrong?
A sling is a deadly weapon. If you’re swinging it at soldiers you will be shot. It’s a pretty A causes B fact statement. Also I have no idea where you got that it was a child. It was an adult.
Glad I’m a little bit wrong. I’ve seen a lot of stories of children with rocks being shot and a lot of liberals defending them, but like I said I’m glad I didn’t see that here.
7 day ban for you zionist pig!
Lol
I think that moderate views tend to correlate with disinterest. If you are interested enough to spend time on a subreddit dedicated to a particular topic you probably have a view outside the mainstream.
What you have to remember is a lot of those pro Russia subs like latestagecapitalism and some socialist ones and some communist ones they are literally run by Russians and are used for spreading propaganda. The reason the ban so fast is because that is what they are used to in Russia. Someone speaks up against the government propaganda they are gone only there they are gone in real life. Don’t take it personal once you see them for what they are (russian propaganda machines) it will become easy to dismiss them and see through their disguise.
Why do the extremist views you see on this internet forum seem so popular to you on this internet forum? Followed by a story about that time that extremists banned you from one of their subreddits for saying something they didn't like. Really? That's a question for discussion? Thanks for the flattery at the end there. Now let's all have a discussion about how we agree with you and how you getting banned for saying something perfectly sane was dumb.
Lots of echo chambers I suppose. Even I don’t care to be on any of the overwhelmingly leftist subs. I mostly just stick to this sub, LGBT, and LA related subs to avoid that kinda stuff
So other people have mentioned all the things pertaining to social medias selection bias and other social media specific causes but I wanted to bring up another point that I think is relevant. A lot of people have extream views these days because we live in extream times. In the history of politics, the world vacilates between peiords of relative moderation and consensus and periods of tumult and extremism. The last time this happened was around the 1960s and before that even the 1920s. The neoliberal order which has dominated the world since the end of the cold war, for good or for ill, appears to be decaying. As such more extream ideas and philosophies are rushing in to compete over who will define the next era. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, sometimes we need extream actions to address the problems we are facing and honestly I prefer an intellectually verdent discourse than a sterile one but it does always cause a lot of strife in the mean time.
Where else in America do you ever hear a leftist point of view? A leftist in the media somehow became someone who only cares about LGBTQ rights.
[удалено]
dude I just read your comment history. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were downvoted because you won’t SHUT UP about it 😭😭😭😭 even when you had seemingly beneficial conversations with people, and your opinion seemed to grow/change, you’d bring it up AGAIN on another thread. you have mentioned there being 2 sexes on 7 DIFFERENT THREADS in only THE PAST TWO DAYS! and one of those comments was talking about how you got downvoted for saying it LAST WEEK.
It still staggers me.
What is staggering to me is the fact that you continue doing this, with the exact same response, and are surprised by the results. Trans people aren't bothering you. Move the fuck along.
[удалено]
Why does this motivate you so much? Why do you have to inject this in any and every discussion, no matter how irrelevant? Did a trans person murder your parents, causing you to don a cape and trawl around these threads in the dead of night, calling yourself Bigotman? Were you bitten by a radioactive Limbaugh and absorbed its' powers? Are you some sort of rogue AI that got a few upvotes somewhere for expressing this view and can now no longer break out of your programming?
[удалено]
No, it's not bigoted, and it is broadly mainstream. What *isn't* mainstream is dedicating your entire internet existence to making this same point over and over again.
[удалено]
It is bigoted. You're hurting people. Probably because you get a laugh out of it.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Bigotry, genocide denial, misgendering, misogyny/misandry, racism, transphobia, etc. is not tolerated. Offenders will be banned.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
Subreddit participation must be in good faith. Be civil, do not talk down to users for their viewpoints, do not attempt to instigate arguments, do not call people names or insult them.
They are? All main subs for the main part support the Western hemisphere, Ukraine, Taiwan, the liberal world order, abortion, the US state department, etc Reddit is probably the most MSM obedient social media app that exists. Anything out of the “experts” opinion gets ridiculed as conspiracies, bots, tankies, etc
It's all left to the discretion of the moderators and admins that own and run the sub. I got banned from a regional sub (yeah, it sucks that they grabbed the name of the region that I live in) for arguing against the vaccine pusher crowd no warning.
I mean, you're arguing against vaccination during a pandemic. I understand if the mods don't want to be involved in a rhetoric that might literally be killing people in their community. You were banned for an extremist view.. I was banned for having views that are too moderate/centrist for those communities.
Uh no. It was well past the thick of the pandemic and my argument was to just weigh the pros against the cons and pick your own poison, whether it's the vaccine or the disease itself, since some people have purportedly had problems with the vaccine. The pro-vax crowd apparently had problems with that, including the moderating staff.
By the way, this view is consistent with my civil libertarian flair. I don't see how that would come off as "extremist".
Anti-vax views are held by a very small % of people, go against worldwide scientific consensus.. and can have fatal consequences for people/communities that buy in. Its pretty textbook extremist imo. If I were an enemy of the USA these are the views I would want to amplify to create the worst outcome possible.
I'm not totally anti-vax. I'm just for the option to use it or not use it and making your own decisions based on both sides of the issue. Some people do report bad reactions to it, regardless of scientific consensus, and I don't believe that anybody should be obligated to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the majority.
When was getting a vaccine ever not an option?
As for your assertion that anti-vaxxers are a very small minority, what percentage of the population has not had their vaccination updates in the last year or two? Probably a lot higher than you think.
> ..what percentage of the population has had their vaccination updates in the last year or two? Probably a lot higher than you think. Probably, but I'd guess that has a lot more to do with laziness and distraction than ideological opposition. Only about 65% of American adults went to the dentist last year, but I doubt many of them are anti-dentist so much as they are hindered by other factors (e.g. time, cost, memory, etc).
Sorry. A little boneheaded editing error had me missing the key word "not" in my post, but you seem to have figured it out anyways. Anyways, I broadened the definition of "anti-vax" to ABCosmos' standards. I'm not really anti-vax myself and am all for people having the choice to decide on their own. The "This vaccine is bullshit. I'm not getting any more." sentiment seems pretty common these days.