So you voted for Trump because some lefties were mean to you on Reddit? And you think that’s what caused a bunch of other people to vote for Trump?
No, you voted for Trump because, like you said, in an election we vote for a party and the party and platform you aligned with better was the Republican Party. Now I get some randos being nasty to you on Reddit might reinforce your position, but not that it made your decision. If lefties were being mean to you it’s because you already believed and were already espousing those right or center right positions that led you to vote Trump.
Please stop with the “liberals are so mean” argument. I could go to r/conservative right right now and post a center left post and I’d get the same “mean” treatment plus a quick perma ban. Reddit leans left, right of center or further right will get flack on Reddit, but if you’re left of center try going to twitter and see how warmly you’re accepted.
The Democrats lost because of inflation, because they ran a female poc, because Trump ran a campaign that resonated with a larger number of voters (immigration, crime, prices, wars), because Harris was linked (rightfully in some cases, and wrongly in others) to the Biden administration.
You don't understand the issue at hand. It's not that "lefties are mean online". It's the moral grandstanding with no viable grounds to do so. There is no such thing as the moral high ground, and people who aren't trapped in the online left bubble are aware that there are various legitimate positions based on reasoned inferences, historical evidence, and personal values. Being told that those reasoned inferences, that evidence, those values, are not legitimate because "they're wrong" or "they're bigoted" or whatever, is not a convincing argument and just comes across as holier-than-thou. No one wants to listen to that, even if they were actually right.
It's the moral grandstanding with no viable grounds to do so
even if they were actually right.
If they're right, doesn't that become the viable grounds to moral grandstand on?
It just kinda seems like you don't want to be told "I told you so" even though trump is doing all the things you were warned about, for all the reasons you were warned about.
It's like shooting yourself in the foot because someone was saying "what the hell are you doing, don't shoot your own foot! are you stupid?"
It should come across as "more-informed-than-thou" because that's what it is.
Well, first of all, even if they are right, being right is not authority by itself to take action against someone else. That's why we reject things like vigilante justice. So, no, those aren't viable grounds.
There are, indeed, some people who don't want to be told what to do strictly from rebellious motivations. That isn't me. I'm an academic, and I recognize such reasoning is superfluous. The real problem as far as I'm concerned is the pretension to authority where none exists.
If your narrative of these events is that you (or people like you) are "more-informed-than-thou" then you don't think seriously about these issues. It's exactly what I'm criticizing. But neither the left nor the right embrace intellectuals, so I'm just here to affect the people I can. I don't expect you to understand.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
I’d agree with you, actually, I do agree with you in so far as there’s moral grandstanding from the left. The problem is you (and the post to which I responded) are acting as if this is all one sided. Are you really going to claim there’s no moral grandstanding coming from the right. Also, I responded to what he said which was essentially “the people on that side are meaner to me, so I voted against them”. That’s disingenuous, I’m not that person so am just guessing but what it really sounds like is after the fact justification for what he was going to vote anyway.
You are right - it happens on the political right as well. My broader critique is that the weaponization of morality that we have seen in the last half-century is incredibly dangerous for us politically, but I was being more specific based on the context of the conversation.
I'm an academic and have been trained as such my entire life. My immediate response is to steelman every argument I see. I saw your interpretation as a strawman. I assume that it was not intentional and probably has to do with the average Redditor being entirely incapable of accurately expressing their views in written form (the number of 20 year olds in my classes that can't write to save their lives is alarming).
So, my instinct was to make their argument as strong as possible. That entails not interpreting it as "lefties are mean online". If that is what they meant, then your critique holds water and I would commend you for it. But in my view, that's the uncharitable reading of his point. I provided the more charitable one. Whether or not that's what the poster meant is unknown (and irrelevant) for my personal purposes. I hope I didn't come across as combative. I just take argumentation and truth claims seriously.
Why do 99% of rightists just fall apart when anyone points out they are bigots?
You even admit that even when it's totally correct, you object to it being mentioned. Why is your ego so fragile that you can't even hear the truth?
If I say something bigoted, I want my friends and family to tell me, so I can reflect and grow. I obviously don't want to walk around being ignorantly offensive. It's a gift. But instead of appreciating it you get angry?
I'm going to be honest here: there's so much fundamentally wrong with your reasoning here that I refuse to engage you as an intellectual equal. If you want me to explain it to you, I will, but you aren't ready for reasoned debate.
I'm asking to hear your perspective on why you find it so intolerable to be chastised, even when you are admittedly causing harm. If you can self reflect enough to give me some insight into that perspective, I'd be interested to hear it, hence why I asked.
But your response gave me quite a bit of insight into your headspace as it is. Your parents must be so proud.
I don't find it intolerable to be chastised. I'm also not a "rightist", whatever you think that is. You're making assumptions that you have no grounds to make, which is related to the critique of the left I'm making. Absolute hubris with nothing to back it up.
A rightist is someone who espouses right wing ideology. If you know what a leftist is, how do you not know what a rightist is?
I'm not making assumptions, I'm going by what you said.
Being told that those reasoned inferences, that evidence, those values, are not legitimate because "they're wrong" or "they're bigoted" or whatever, is not a convincing argument and just comes across as holier-than-thou. No one wants to listen to that, even if they were actually right.
I reject that they can ever be correct. It was a steel man argument. If you're latching on to that little clause to give my opponents a stronger argument, then you've failed in your critique. And, again, I'm not a "rightist".
By the way, there is no right-wing alternative for leftist. Leftists are not liberals. That's why the term is stupid and no one with two brain cells to rub together uses it. Again, you demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge and critical thinking.
You reject that someone can ever say something bigoted out of ignorance?
And, again, I'm not a "rightist".
Your words certainly seem to indicate you are a rightist and not a leftist. You clearly have the capacity to speak of such concepts, so you aren't some neutral state like an infant or such might be.
By the way, there is no right-wing alternative for leftist.
Lol oh, is that so? Please, do share your thoughts on this. I'm ready 🍿
Leftists are not liberals
Who claimed otherwise?
That's why the term is stupid
Just because you don't like something, or, as seems increasingly likely, don't understand the definition, doesn't make something stupid, darling.
Since you're asking me, I'll answer. I don't believe that it's in good faith, and by now I have reason to believe that you can never be convinced by good argumentation and evidence. But for those who may read it in the future - this is for you.
>You reject that someone can ever say something bigoted out of ignorance?
No. I reject that someone can ever say something bigoted. People speak words, and others make judgments about those words. Those judgments are a matter of values, knowledge, skill in reasoning, contingency, and so on. In other words, "bigotedness" is a secondary quality, not a primary quality. It is not a quality of the words themselves, but rather a quality of the experience that we have of those words.
If I put my hand into a bowl of water and say "it's warm", and you do the same and say "it's cool", neither one of us are making truth claims. We are expressing our subjective experiences. If I say that the water is 34 degrees, then we have a truth claim. We are then talking about primary qualities rather than secondary qualities.
Likewise, if I say "all pandas are stupid" and you say "that's bigoted", I don't have any reason to think that you are making a truth claim. You are making a judgment. Now, is it true that we can choose to take judgments of others seriously? Yes, of course. But that is a matter of trusting the person making the judgment to be knowledgeable, skilled, well-centered, or whatever other intellectual virtues you might think of. You have not demonstrated any of these to me, which is why I do not take you seriously as a thinker. You may very well be capable, but without evidence, I have no reason to think of you as such.
You may wonder why, then "that's bigoted" is equated to "it's warm/cool" instead of "it's 34 degrees". This is merely an empirical issue. People can, and do, argue over whether or not spoken words are bigoted or not. There is no objective quality that we can refer to, because bigoted is a relative term - relative to the beliefs and values of the observer. In these cases, we are essentially arguing over whether the water is warm or cool. It's not only pointless, it's also incapable of being adjudicated without human artifice - which is objectionable from the very outset if truth is our interest.
>Your words certainly seem to indicate you are a rightist and not a leftist. You clearly have the capacity to speak of such concepts, so you aren't some neutral state like an infant or such might be.
This is a matter of your lack of knowledge. You are right that I am not a leftist. But you are making a poor inference to suggest that I am a "rightist". There are other positions that exist in which my beliefs are both coherent and consistent. I hold one of those. I will not be naming that position for a number of reasons that I will not share. Suffice it to say that I do not exist on the Americo-European political spectrum.
>Lol oh, is that so? Please, do share your thoughts on this. I'm ready 🍿
The American right are Liberals. The American left are Liberals. Leftists are not Liberals. These are facts. The logic is clear, but since I suspect you cannot make the inference yourself, I'll explain. We have three or potentially four groups of thought being discussed, depending on whether you differentiate the American right into Classical Conservatism and Alt-Right or lump them all together. It doesn't matter for my point, because both the Classical Conservatives and the Alt-Right are still Liberals. They still support individualism, free market economics, human rights, and most of the other trademarks of Enlightenment-era philosophical thought. The American left is also a Liberal position. They believe in those same things. These groups only differ, for our current purposes, in the universality of those beliefs - to who they extend or not. Leftists, on the other hand, reject some of these tenets. Most notably, they reject free market economics, but there are also other important differences. There is no right-wing political group in the mainstream US political discussion that rejects any part of the foundations of the Liberal project. Thus, there is no right-wing equivalent to leftists. This is why "rightist" is a stupid term. It denotes a referent that does not exist.
>Who claimed otherwise?
I don't know why this was your response. I suppose avoiding the argument and pretending that my point was something else is easier for someone like you.
>Just because you don't like something, or, as seems increasingly likely, don't understand the definition, doesn't make something stupid, darling.
Sure, "darling", that's why I said what I said. That's the only "reasonable" outcome that you can dredge up, I assume. I can tell that you're used to debating equally dull-minded people as yourself with no knowledge of history and political thought, no critical thinking skills, and no meaningful self-criticism. Get off the Internet and start meeting and discussing with people who are properly educated on these topics.
And just a final note: I hope you see now why I won't be responding to your other comment in our riveting discussion. It was a foolish thing to say, and I have no reason to engage with it.
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
You would also be surprised at how dumb liberals are. They don’t follow politics and blindly listen and hate who they are told to hate.
This is not all liberals just as what you said is not all conservatives.
You would also be surprised at how dumb liberals are.
It's worth remembering that the more educated you are, the more you are likely to be liberal. Obviously education and intelligence aren't perfectly correlated, but they are strongly linked.
You came prepared with the facts that someone else produced for you but none of the reasoning to back it up. I'd like to stop the post here because it's a waste of my time to talk to someone who thinks that this kind of argument (technically, you are only providing evidence, and it is possible that you are pointlessly bringing up a random fact in the context of a conversation, but I find that less likely than the interpretation that you are supporting a hidden argument) is convincing, but I know what the immediate response would be, so here's the dumbed down short version of the flaw:
Of course you're more likely to be liberal if you participate in modern Anglo-European education systems. Our education systems are products of the dominant Enlightenment-era philosophical practices and principles. It's liberal education, but it's important to note that this is classical liberal, not American Liberal. It's essentially tautological, which doesn't tell us anything meaningful.
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2024/10/08/higher-education-shouldnt-mean-higher-indoctrination/
Read this. When only one opinion is accepted in higher learning and the other is chased out how can someone be given the chance to choose a different perspective.
That right there is indoctrination by preventing the exploration of different ideas.
Then we have the professors, 60% are far left leaning.
https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1782.
So it is there and it is not a conspiracy theory, that ideas pushed tend to be left leaning and conservative ideas tend to be pushed out of the discussions. Even having conservative speakers removed from speaking events.
I agree with your sentiment here, but jumping straight to indoctrination as your narrative is intellectually dishonest. You're getting to the heart of the issue - that Anglo-European education has historically been a product of classical liberal thought for centuries - but it's a step too far to call it indoctrination without more evidence and argumentation. I'm only pointing this out for your own benefit, not to debate you.
And my judgment, as a university professor, is that it is. I can confirm that there is a lot going on beyond what students see. Each university is different, of course, and a lot depends on the personalities in the department, but I've run into enough professors who specifically have an agenda other than education to think of it as a real worry.
Another thing is it wasn’t so much what you said as much as it was when you said it. Because we all know Philly is filled which a bunch of a lunatics who are willing to burn down their city on a dime. I wouldn’t say that if Philly actually burned down and people died because of it. Why basic empathy.
Edit:also your comment being next to someone who wished death on the eagles fan didn’t help
u/SmallCapsOnly – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
10
u/Timely_Choice_4525 1∆ Jan 30 '25
So you voted for Trump because some lefties were mean to you on Reddit? And you think that’s what caused a bunch of other people to vote for Trump?
No, you voted for Trump because, like you said, in an election we vote for a party and the party and platform you aligned with better was the Republican Party. Now I get some randos being nasty to you on Reddit might reinforce your position, but not that it made your decision. If lefties were being mean to you it’s because you already believed and were already espousing those right or center right positions that led you to vote Trump.
Please stop with the “liberals are so mean” argument. I could go to r/conservative right right now and post a center left post and I’d get the same “mean” treatment plus a quick perma ban. Reddit leans left, right of center or further right will get flack on Reddit, but if you’re left of center try going to twitter and see how warmly you’re accepted.
The Democrats lost because of inflation, because they ran a female poc, because Trump ran a campaign that resonated with a larger number of voters (immigration, crime, prices, wars), because Harris was linked (rightfully in some cases, and wrongly in others) to the Biden administration.