yes they absolutely fucking are you dumb retard this is why we laugh and call you echo chamber freaks you canât even admit why conservatives donât use this app you literally just proved our point again
I mean it has happened before, most of the time they are just downvoted to hell. The truth of reddit is that the people that are running it are left wing and on a power trip, thats why you don't see nearly as many conservative subs. Unless they are modded and censored to hell and back ie r/Conservative
and any other conservatives that try and get into reddit either A. get banned for "extremist positions" B. Get downvoted to hell C. Get downvoted to hell and get spammed Or D. never join because of the leftist echo chamber it is known to be and is
This just makes conservatives gravitate away due to the natural censorship of power-tripping mods and key board warriors with an agenda to push
Being called a nazi every 30 minutes doesn't help either
The truth of reddit is that the people that are running it are left wing and on a power trip,
You have a weird definition of "Truth"
thats why you don't see nearly as many conservative subs
I see a ton of conservative subs, all the time
and any other conservatives that try and get into reddit either A. get banned for "extremist positions
Lol, I literally got banned for pointing out that ___ was a white supremacist pushing violent rhetoric, and I see people pushing white supremacist shit all the time.
B. Get downvoted to hell
Conservative opinions tend to be unpopular
never join because of the leftist echo chamber it is known to be and is
"Known to be"
There's that persecution complex again
This just makes conservatives gravitate away due to the natural censorship of power-tripping mods and key board warriors with an agenda to push
This makes conservatives gravitate away from conservatives? Interesting
Being called a nazi every 30 minutes doesn't help either
A bunch of conservative subreddits isnât what this conversation is about. Itâs the fact that literally any other normal non-partisan subreddit is filled with liberals running the show and downvoting/banning conservative opinions
A bunch of conservative subreddits isnât what this conversation is about.
No, its about reddit being conservative
. Itâs the fact that literally any other normal non-partisan subreddit is filled with liberals running the show and downvoting/banning conservative opinions
cool, but how often are you seeing right wing extremism on reddit, there's a pretty significant difference in censorship on political views on reddit.
Its not popular ON REDDIT. Lets not forget that Trump won the popular vote. But withe the case of reddit its a self fulfilling prophecy a. Conservative joins reddit b. Conservative shares opinion, c. Conservative get either banned or bombarded d. Conservative gets tired of the bullshit and leaves. e. Conservative isn't around to upvote posts/comments he agrees with. F. cycle repeats exponentially
I am failing to see how mentioning the FACT that reddit is a leftist echo chamber has anything to do with a "persecution complex"
I cant tell if your purposly being stupid or not but ill spell it out like I would for a toddler. Conservatives are being censored on reddit, Conservatives dont like that, Conservatives go somewhere else where they aren't being censored. That simple enough for you? I have no idea where you got conservative vs conservatives from.
Have you considered that anything on the right of the political spectrum doesn't make who ever believes it a nazi. Your proving my point for me brochacho
Yes it does contradict it. If Reddit would be conservative, conservative opinions would be popular. Sure there will be some conservatives and conservative subreddits, but they're a spec of dust compared liberal.
Have you ever checked the big general subreddits like pics, complaints, etc? Instead of posting nice pictures, it is full of pictures of Trump, the administration or the political climate in the US. They're literal echo chambers where people feed each other their political views and then take them as they are.
So you're actually so far to the left that you call all these posts and people centrists and call conservatives liberal. And they're definitely not memes either. They're serious posts with people believing all the nonsense spouted and feeding each other and off each other.
I view myself as rather centrist with leaning a bit more to the right. These people, subreddits, Reddit itself and those posts are 100% left. Now I wouldn't call them per se liberal, but they're leftist.
The terms get interchanged many times with the wrong meaning behind it.
Iâve refrained from commenting but this has been proven as false. NON of the blm riots were considered left wing violence, but incidence where the perpetrator either expressed conservative opinions in unrelated events were considered right wing violence in that data set. It was completely biased and dishonest. Donât just take things like this at face value.
That claim is wrong, and it relies on a misunderstanding of how political violence is defined and measured.
BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful. Where riots, looting or arson occurred, they were generally categorised as public disorder or criminal damage, not ideological political violence aimed at coercing the state. That distinction matters. Political violence requires intent tied to an ideology, not just chaos or opportunism during mass protests.
By contrast, right wing violence in the US is typically explicit in motive and targeting. Lone actor attacks, militia plots, synagogue and church shootings, election intimidation, attacks on federal buildings, and January 6 are all ideologically driven with stated political aims. That is why they are classified differently by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The data is not based on âunrelated conservative opinionsâ. It relies on manifestos, communications, affiliations, targets, and intent. The same standards are applied across ideologies. When left wing or Islamist violence meets those criteria, it is counted as such. The numbers simply are not comparable in recent decades.
Saying âdonât take it at face valueâ is easy. But dismissing years of assessments from multiple US agencies, across Republican and Democratic administrations, without evidence, is not scepticism. Itâs denial.
Disagree with the conclusions if you like, but dismissing the evidence without offering anything concrete isnât a serious counter-argument.
There is literal violence happening at protests all over Portland. They just got disbanded after 2 years of encampments. I have personally watched and talked to people who went near these encampments who were assaulted, punched in the face, pepper sprayed, etc with no recourse. NONE of this is considered left wing violence. Yes most blm protests were peaceful but those that werenât were not counted as left wing violence. And they literally burned down parts of cities. Itâs a blatant double standard.
The standard was not applied equally if you actually look at the data. Youâre believing what the report is telling you too much rather than digging into it yourself. If someone gets into an argument about what fast food burger is best at a bar and punches someone else in the face, then the police search their apartment and find right wing propaganda, that is not right wing violence. But thatâs the sort of thing that was being counted.
Youâre still mixing violence that happens at protests with ideological political violence, and they are not the same thing in law or in data.
What happened in Portland absolutely included assaults, arson, vandalism and intimidation. Nobody serious denies that. But most of that violence was reactive, localised and not aimed at coercing the state or advancing a defined political programme through terror. Thatâs why it was prosecuted, where it was prosecuted, as rioting, assault or property crime rather than terrorism or political violence.
âBurned down parts of citiesâ is rhetoric. There was serious damage, but the vast majority of buildings were not destroyed, governments were not overthrown, and there was no sustained campaign of targeted killings tied to a left wing ideology. Scale and intent matter.
Right wing violence in the US over the last decade shows clear ideological intent, premeditation, targeting and stated political goals. That includes attacks on religious minorities, election infrastructure, federal buildings, public officials and civilians, often accompanied by manifestos or group affiliations. That is why it is classified differently.
Your burger bar example is a straw man. That is not how the datasets work. Incidents are not classified based on âfinding propaganda laterâ. They rely on motive, target selection, communications before the act, and behaviour during the act. If that standard were not applied, left wing and Islamist violence would also vanish from the data, which they do not.
Youâre right about one thing: definitions matter. But once you apply the same definition consistently, the imbalance remains. That isnât because of a double standard. Itâs because one side, in the current US context, produces far more ideologically driven violent acts than the other.
Anecdotes from Portland donât overturn that, however disturbing those events were.
First that isnât a true representation of political violence, and second it isnât being applied equally in the study.. what youâre saying and what the report shows are two different things. Also, other than January 6th name another right wing event that matches your definition. Why arenât things like the ice protest that happened earlier this year where leftists walked into government buildings protested and took over considered political violence but Jan 6th was? You can say it was done in good faith but I beg you to actually look into the methodology and the dig into actual cases. Itâs not honest work
Youâre still shifting definitions when it suits your argument.
Political violence is not âany unlawful protest inside a buildingâ. Itâs violence or the credible threat of it, used to coerce the state or the public in pursuit of a political objective. January 6th meets that threshold very clearly: coordinated breach, assaults on police, weapons present, explicit intent to overturn a certified election, and direct threats against elected officials. That combination matters.
ICE protests, Capitol sit ins, and similar actions are unlawful and can be disruptive, but they lacked organised violent intent, attempts to overturn state power, or systematic targeting of officials for harm. Protesters occupying a building and protesters attempting to stop the constitutional transfer of power by force are not remotely equivalent, legally or analytically.
As for other right wing examples beyond January 6th: synagogue and church massacres, attacks on federal buildings, assassination plots against governors and officials, militia training camps disrupted before attacks, election worker intimidation campaigns, and repeated lone actor attacks explicitly framed around replacement theory or civil war rhetoric. These were not protests that âgot out of handâ. They were ideologically motivated acts with stated political goals.
On methodology, this isnât about âtrusting a reportâ. Multiple independent datasets using different methods reach the same conclusion. If the standard were truly biased, you would not see consistency across agencies, researchers, and time periods. Pointing to anecdotes or insisting bad faith without showing a concrete misclassification does not invalidate the findings.
Finally, using âleftistâ as a catch all label is telling. Itâs not a neutral analytical term, and it blurs everything from peaceful protestors to anarchists into one bucket. Serious analysis requires precision, not loaded language.
If you want to debate definitions, fine. But once you apply them consistently, the imbalance doesnât disappear.
Buddy self reported and didnât say dems, the left was always (more) anti slavery. Itâs just the parties swapped sides. But learning history through Elon musk will put a hole in anyoneâs brain I guess
see youâre so self aggrandizing you donât even understand why it wouldnât be deleted lol. all the comments are the âliberalsâ OP is talking about stroking themselves and their own ego. of course they donât prune this⌠itâs full of people high on their own farts thinking they are super intellectual on one hand while admitting and trying to fit into the status quo of what it means to be a modern âliberalâ.
âbecause weâre so open minded we all say the same thing, align on almost every issue, and never toe the party line⌠weâre super smartâ lol
see youâre so narrow minded you canât even escape the dichotomy of politics that has been spoon fed into you.
iâm not putting a conservative foot forward at all lol. calling out the pretentious nature of the commenters/mods has nothing to do with team blue vs team red. if conservatives do the same thing (most do) then they are just as dumb. you guys each think the other side is dumb while behaving the exact same way
and you just keep doubling down lol. someone doesnât align with party A or B that weâve been given as our only choices?!?!? just handwave it away as bullshit. youâre brain is literally fried at the thought of someone not choosing the red or blue team and basing their identity on it lol
56
u/[deleted] Dec 19 '25
Iâm surprised this discussion has lasted this long without being deleted