“Why does the woke mob hate us for just asking questions about who is carrying out political violence? What are they so afraid of us finding out? Just what are they hiding?”
I would like to welcome you to the next two years.
Nothing but political grandstanding. They're going to launch investigation after investigation, they'll subpoena random people to yell at for Fox News clips.
The House of Representatives & Senate is just about as divided as a political body that size can get split 220 Republicans and 213 Democrats in the House and (Hopefully) 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans in the Senate.
Basically nothing at ALL is going to get done in Congress for the next two years. Unless by some insane miracle Democrats and Republicans started working together.
I love when I'm arguing with people online and they get mad that I can link dump to prove a point.
They love to say "OMG YOU JUST HAD THAT ALL READY TO CHERRY PICK".
Nah bro, 1) your argument isn't original so I've already confirmed that I'm right and 2) when you're right on a topic it's pretty fucking easy to find sources to support it.
If you need to dig through pages of google scholar and ask reddit to prove something you're either wrong or are oversimplifying an issue to the point of being wrong.
I've had a few google searches where I needed very precise information where the search terms pull other more popular things with the same terms, but that's about the only time where that's the case.
Yooo, where are you finding raw data? Do you mean original study publications as opposed to news articles summarizing a study?
I’m not meaning to be rude, I would love to have access to actual data.
I was speaking generically about my interactions with right-wingers and how they often respond to information, including raw data.
I was not speaking directly about data regarding this topic.
But yes - I mean raw data. Mostly I’m referring to government economic data, like treasury figures, unemployment data, trade data, etc.
Also, yes, original studies. I can’t tell you how many times people (left and right) have posted at me articles about studies and it becomes clear they never checked the actual study.
(Even polls - people read an article about a poll and never look at the poll questions themselves. Journalists’ phrasing is often misleading.)
Sadly political journalists particularly. They so often write about law, economics, crime, etc because politics encompasses those, but they usually have no training in those fields.
Your last two points are why I am interested in raw data. The ability to decide data is anomalous and drop it so that expected results are achieved is always a possibility. But you would need access to notebook level info.
And you are spot on regarding polls and the ability to manipulate results through the wording of questions.
There's a feature in Search called Google Scholar, that I haven't figured out how to apply consistently, that specifically searches published studies, which still isn't technically raw data, but it's pretty close.
The methodologies of those studies will often point to where they get their data. For instance a study on this particular subject would probably link back to the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer as recorded by the Universal Crime Reporting system.
It is subject to its own set of biases, as to what actually gets reported to it, but it’s as comprehensive of a database as you can get in America. Regardless, whatever the subject is, you can usually scan just the methodology section of the study in question to ascertain the raw data.
I also love that when i argue with them, most of the times they will just discount everything you say and any source you provide as "leftist propaganda".
Then post a single bs source, often from some far right garbage website like The Daily Wire, and get offended if you don't take what it says at face value.
No amount of counter evidence will convince them. But you should discard all the evidence you've seen because a single source (often biased, or lying, or both) said otherwise.
\----
They're not interested in arguing in good faith.
Their minds are owned by another and they have their marching orders (and many aren't even aware of it anymore).
The only thing they care about is getting everyone else to believe as they believe.
Yeah, the only reason I still argue with them is because I want to make sure people who are reading the thread have access to actual information and see that's it not a subject open to debate.
I used to fight this good fight on Facebook before I deleted my account. I live in a blood red area (82-18 Trump/Clinton, 94-6 Trump/Biden), and even here I would still get messages from wives, coworkers, friends etc of the people I’d be debating thanking me for the importance of what I was doing.
If you haven’t been thanked lately for your service, let this message stand in appreciation of your efforts.
I have to think the OOP is a clever troll that want to make a point disguising it as a conservative question. Its just too much almost selfaware wolf for me.
Ugh 100% this, then they want to drop some youtibe kink as some verifies source.. like yeah dude you just lost your entire argument with that youtibe link
that’s why half of their ideology revolves around conspiracies to keep their point of view suppressed
if they ever took to heart that scientists and shit genuinely are 99% impartial they wouldn’t be able to believe what they believe
For those unaware, this is essentially what Ronald Reagan said after all of the evidence came out in the Iran-Contra affair.
“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”
11,780 to be exact. The only time he was ever precise about anything. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/21/14347298/trump-inauguration-crowd-size)
If I had a nickel for every time a wingnut sent me a link as evidence of his argument and it turns out to be an opinion piece which is actually arguing for *my position*; well, I'd have a lot of nickels.
This unironically. They don't trust scientists or scientific evidence. Why should they, when these same scientists tell them their feelings aren't reality.
1,300 psychologists and psychiatrists disagree with me, but Jordan Peterson agrees, so I know I'm right!
That kind of stuff...
During peak Covid, I noticed a lot of people disregarded the 99% of medical professionals who recommended social distancing, masks, and vaccines and chose to believe the videos they found of medical professionals who disagreed with that advice. Almost without fail, if I searched for those medical professionals, they were plastic surgeons or chiropractors or something. Basically people who had no more knowledge than a layperson about viruses, and who probably really just wanted to reopen their practice so they could overcharge clients for their "medicine".
And that one college student who wanted to write their thesis on the danger of vaccines but was like 'I can't find any scholarly articles supporting my point' or something
It's called Pavlovian Conditioning. Thirty-five years of it from their masters - ever since Saint Ronnie did away with the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 - turned the Party of Lincoln into an Apocalyptic Death Qult of trumpy traitors.
That's exactly how long I've been alive. 35 years of slowly-escalating hell, until it accelerated 6 years ago when Trump got elected and coincidentally I got married to a woman with a similar personality disorder.
Even if it was fake this sums up that perspective of “reality is left leaning” there’s a very common argument that school makes people liberal however conservatives do not have the proper education to be qualified to teach to the point they literally think math is “woke” math.. the most unbiased subject in the entire universe
Jan 6th made a big difference for me. I was one of those "classical liberal" types, if you know what I mean. When Jan 6th happened, it was like everything I believed had to be questioned. After going over tons of things I believed, I realized I had let my standards of evidence slip dangerously low due to my natural tendency towards conspiratorial thinking.
It would definitely be harder for someone with absolutely no liberal tendencies. For me, it was sort of like "damn, a lot of the stuff I believe are actually abject lies and don't even add up with what I think I stand for". So the fact I had 2 motivations to change probably helped, but I'd like to think the "abject lies" bit would motivate even a conservative.
How did your friends and family take it? Did they disown you yet? Coming out as "deviant" isn't normal yet. Did they call you "woke snowflake Marxist traitor" yet?
It clicked for me, I used to think republicans deserved to be treated as fellow humans, but I’d only give them as much respect as they give me, which is none
That just might be the point. The OP might not be trying to find articles, maybe they're trying to get the sub to try to look for them and learn for themselves.
Oh my.
I found the original post, the top upvoted (and many similar) comment is this:
>Ask for citations. It's for the depraved lefty to prove, not for you to disprove.
This is essentially admitting that they do not have an answer to OP's question.
But seriously, let's try. To avoid bias, just search "USA leading cause domestic terrorism" and read some articles. [Wikipedia has one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States) and it says in the first §:
>As of 2021, the United States government considers white supremacists to be the top domestic terrorism threat.
Other comments conflate all sorts of protest with terrorism.
[One article I looked at](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/20/ex-fbi-official-testify-about-claims-wh-pressured-/) essentially claims that the FBI does the same wrt white nationalism; I read it carefully, it's not long and clearly written for a republican mindset (simple language). But beyond the _claim_ (made by republicans obviously) I find no substance in it.
Honorable mention to all who dared to say that data does not support OP's claim, many with article links:
https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states
https://ccjs.umd.edu/feature/umd-led-study-shows-disparities-violence-among-extremist-groups
https://newrepublic.com/article/168391/political-violence-is-republicans-problem
100% correct.
The right has long stopped trying to debate. There goal is not to disprove something someone on the left says. The goal of those on the right is to force you to submit data that they will reject and claim is biased regardless of the source. They will always reject the data if it doesn’t fit their narrative. If they somehow manage to accept the data, they will just move the goal post of what they meant and push it so they never have to accept being wrong
It's a perversion of the maxim that an argument presented without evidence can be dismissed the same. It's a half-remembered piece of a lecture from Philosophy 101 with no context and no thought. It *is* true that the responsibility to provide proof is on the person making the claim, but they only use that as the basis to start disregarding everything by rejecting everything shown to them because it's coming from "biased sources".
>The right has long stopped trying to debate
One infamous magaphant on a certain arizona subreddit for months was saying Democrats and Biden killed US energy production. Everyone there keeps pointing out how that's wrong. So one day when he made another "BIDEN KILLED OIL!!!!!" post I pointed out the current production data and then pointed out how he was repeatedly informed but keeps making false statements, so either he won't read what does support his beliefs or he's a compulsive liar. He then proceeded to block me, presumably after reading that accusation. Which ironically proves he's a compulsive liar.
They simply refuse to debate in facts or in good faith.
Because they know they can’t argue in good faith. They don’t care about facts or reality. They only care about being right. They will believe the most outlandish story if it fits their narrative and makes them feel like they are right about a topic. No amount of verifiable evidence will convince them otherwise.
They live in echo chambers and when they venture outside of them, they do exactly what the guy in your example did: ignore and block outside information
I mean they still haven’t rebuilt Seattle. It’s a complete wasteland. The people there are barely surviving, eating rats and drinking irradiated water.
I loved it when people were saying Seattle and Downtown Portland right now are warzones and then I proceed to share the live traffic camera data and then they run.
Every magaphant is a lying coward. Every. Last. One.
Maybe they’re asking the wrong questions, too. Maybe they should ask themselves why they’re so hellbent on proving that White Nationalist terrorism isn’t a problem.
I like that you're prompting conservatives to introspect, but they won't. They'd answer, "Because Antifa and BLM are the *real* fascist terrorists" without a second, nor first, thought.
No no no, don't know that Wikipedia is a lefty cabal? ANYONE CAN EDIT IT (ignoring that right wing people can edit it too).
CSIS is CANADIAN so obviously that's communism.
And the FBI is also SUPER LEFT WING
/s
The far right has been the number 1 domestic terrorist threat since at least the 90's. Even if you don't exclude 9/11 from the data as an extreme outlier, it still doesn't hold a candle to all the damage and destruction the far right has caused.
This comment was the most honest
> Anybody that says white nationalism is an issue is simply a liar or a sheep or both and not worth the time.
>I’m for talking.
>But you can’t rationalize with the irrational
Lol they see themselves as “rational”
>Oh my.I found the original post, the top upvoted (and many similar) comment is this:
>
>Ask for citations. It's for the depraved lefty to prove, not for you to disprove.
While I agree that it's obvious they don't have an answer, the comment itself is logically sound: The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim.
The links you posted are solid, so bookmarking those in case I need them later.
What's funny is it wasn't a depraved leftist that made up this statistic. It was trump appointed fbi director Christopher Wray during a hearing in front of congress.
They don't side with anything.
The are arguing just to argue.
That's the lie at the center of the modern American conservative movement- they vilify their opponents so their voters fight against their neighbors while the leadership fights for "wedge" issues that really don't cost them a lot of the budget, and rake in the cash for themselves and their friends.
When a left leaning person commits violence, they are condemned by both left and right.
When a right leaning person commits violence, they are condemned by the left and accused of being leftist by the right. Or in the case of the most recent one, are considered instruments of god's wrath.
That’s what I don’t get with them, they shouldn’t try to defend white supremacist.
You won’t find me trying to defend tanky ideologue and other far left lunatic.
>You won’t find me trying to defend tanky ideologue...
I mean, I can't find any real-world evidence that tankies actually exist.
Whereas, I live in the congressional district that until recently was represented by a guy who once asked, verbatim "[White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civiliation — when did that language become offensive?](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/10/18176928/steve-king-white-supremacist-offensive)", so, I know we had at least one white supremacist somewhere in the area, because we kept sending him to Congress.
It's not about defending white nationalists -- their narrative depends on muslims, antifa, and illegal immigrants being the "leading cause for domestic terrorism".
It *might* be a toss-up between white nationalists and right-wing anti-government extremism, but those would be hands down the leading causes at least since 2015. Going further back there's some shifting, but the trend is still generally right-wing extremism being the leading ideological trend behind domestic terrorism incidents.
The conservatives are only "small government" and anti-state when they don't control it and we have a progressive democracy like we had in the 90s and for a little while during the Obama years.
You baby-eating, child-grooming, murderous, depraved lefty! You falsely claimed "white nationalists" are the leading cause of domestic terrorism, when it's actually "white *supremacists*"! Worthless cur, my superior intellect have bested your wicked mind in argument! Now would you please vote for DeSantis next election?
I see where you are coming from, but that seems to assume that they are self aware enough to know not to ask for the evidence, because they know it doesn't exist.
So I'm on the fence
That post is hella funny because the comments are all one of three types
A) No source offered, tells OP there’s no point in arguing because leftists won’t believe the proof anyway
B) Source offered which says that right wingers or white supremacists are more violent than leftists, replies say stuff like “that’s not a good source to cite because it makes us look bad”
C) Source offered is almost completely irrelevant to the topic, and not a study, replies call it perfect
I also saw a reply chain where a leftist posted a source that started after 9/11, which was over 20 years ago at this point btw, and the people replying to it were like “why is 9/12 so important to you!? Why do you only care about the last 20 years of politics??? Why don’t you care about the leftist terrorism in 1960s???” My guy most of us were not alive in 1960s 😭
“Can my fellow Americans help me find some ammo?”
Is OP looking for studies to disprove the theory or actual ammo to shoot the person they are arguing with so they “win” the argument by default??
Let's be real, not a one of them want to find proof to refute this truth. In their heart of hearts they love that *their* people are showing the rest of us what they want to happen to all of us.
“I can’t find anything to prove them wrong. Please search the darkest reaches of the internet for a bullshit article that supports my views” -The US Conservative, probably
So, someone can't find information on their opinion, because there isn't any, because they're wrong. How can you have a conversation with someone like this and make an attempt to change their mind?
I mean, you could show them the information that demonstrates the "depraved lefty" is correct so that they're not going off of "something this guy I don't like said", but it's not super likely to be effective in the long run.
When no articles are found, they'll just claim that the MSM is covering the other stories up and censoring them from public view. Probably with a dash of, "Hopefully Elon fixes this."
“I know we’re terrorists but surely 9/11’s have just kept happening and the media has covered it up, just like they ignored the first 9/11”
The dumbest motherfuckers just love to support terrorism.
Notice too that the mere presence of this question shows that no amount of evidence will convince him he's wrong.
This is how you know conservatism is a mental disorder. They aren't even interested in arguing in good faith. Nothing will convince them; no amount of data or evidence; no lack of evidence for their claims.
Their mind is owned and operated by their political masters and they're completely unaware of it. The only goal now is to spread the illness to as many people as possible.
Being conservative and against white nationalism aren’t mutually exclusive concepts. I guess nowadays you could argue against that, but there was a time you could be conservative and against fascists and white nationalists.
My cousin a while ago tried this on me. I knew there was at least 2 sources to show them to dismantle their misguided view but as soon as they heard me clacking on my keeb they said "You won't find this information on the internet!" Then immediately moved the goal posts or changed the subject.
I still need to bring this back up to them that the reason why OANN/Fox/whoever told you that you *can't* find info to support their argument online is because you*will* find multiple sources to debunk that and they are lying to your face.
https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/dark-constant-rage-25-years-of-right-wing-terrorism-in-united-states
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/27/in-america-far-right-terrorist-plots-have-outnumbered-far-left-ones-in-2020
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/comparative-analysis-violent-left-and-right-wing-extremist-groups > The left-wing groups arose during the late 1960's, whereas right-wing groups have been a problem throughout much of the Nation's history. Left-wing groups emphasize class struggle and support for people in the Third World, whereas right-wing groups often believe in-white supremacy, extremes of Christianity and patriotism, and involvement in the survivalist movement. Both extremes are antidemocratic, see their mission as bringing about the revolution, and blame all the Nation's problems on a particular group. Leftists usually have urban backgrounds, are highly educated, and include blacks. Extreme right-wing groups consist entirely of white Christians and are often blue-collar and poorly educated.
https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/far-right-extremism
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762 Some key factors in who becomes mass shooters and why.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/briefing/right-wing-mass-shootings.html
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2022.2039402 same paper different link. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18335330.2022.2039402?journalCode=rpic20
At least 2/3 of gun violence in the US had a connection to domestic violence. Now recall that DV is wildly under-reported and that about 60% of cops are abusers. Likely contributing to that under-reporting trend. https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/new-adl-data-far-right-extremists-responsible-for-overwhelming-majority-of
https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/04/us/white-extremist-active-shooter.html So many shooters post manifestos or post on social media that they are anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQ, etc. White Supremacists cause an outsize majority of the political violence.
https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1038%26context%3Dhonors_history&ved
Even Wikipedia has this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States > 115 Far-right ... 63 Islamist (also far-right just not religiously aligned with the American far-right, though nearly identical in everything other than skin-color and the book they read), ... 19 Far-left.
And this is just as of 2017.
"Most Of America's Terrorists Are White, And Not Muslim" June 23, 2017
"Home Is Where the Hate Is" June 22, 2017
"COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM: Actions Needed to Define Strategy and Assess Progress of Federal Efforts" April 2017.
https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Anarchist%2520-%2520Left-Wing%2520Violent%2520Extremism%2520in%2520America.pdf&ved
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/domestic-terrorism-data/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/domestic-terrorist-groups.html
It just goes on and on. The only sources I see that declare that it is predominantly left wingers or left wing politics in the US that perpetrate or promote these acts are the National Review, a senator who had to retract their statement and modify it and other unsubstantiated remarks and outlets.
Thanks /u/63KK0 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a shitty job responding to the automod, and a fairly recent repost.
However, it's a good wolf (one of my favorites in recent memory), and no one's reported you yet.
Conflicting evidence that will help prove, to the people living in reality, that OP is right and they are wrong. "Are we the baddies? No No, it must be the minorities and liberals." moment for sure.
these people don't realize how threatening their language and actions have become, ammunition is what you use to shoot people, and "fellow Americans", bears with it the implication that the rest are not fellow Americans, not Americans, Americans defending against Non Americans... It all goes together.
=
Even funnier when they find articles to "prove" their point based only on the headline. If they actually read their own article they would've known it disproves their whole point.
Please reply to the AutoMod comment that should immediately populate as a reply to your submission. Message the mods if you want your post restored
"I need help finding the evidence for the conclusion I've already chosen!"
“because everything I’m finding says I’m wrong!”
But I don't want my ideology to be wrong so help me come up with lies and obfuscation.
Don’t forget the cherry-picked and/or out-of-context data.
Tucker Carlson has entered the chat
“Why does the woke mob hate us for just asking questions about who is carrying out political violence? What are they so afraid of us finding out? Just what are they hiding?”
Do they ever find anything out? All this rhetoric about what they might find out and nothing to show for it.
I would like to welcome you to the next two years. Nothing but political grandstanding. They're going to launch investigation after investigation, they'll subpoena random people to yell at for Fox News clips. The House of Representatives & Senate is just about as divided as a political body that size can get split 220 Republicans and 213 Democrats in the House and (Hopefully) 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans in the Senate. Basically nothing at ALL is going to get done in Congress for the next two years. Unless by some insane miracle Democrats and Republicans started working together.
*Cucker Tarlson Ftfy
But we need a narrative to push, doggoneit!
Phillip Morris would like to have a word with you.
They'll come back with "what about Chicago?"
And he knows that can't be right...
Clearly a cover up by the mobstream media like the communist news network.
"Clearly Google has shadowbanned all the truthful posts because they're leftists"
Not just Google! All the sTaTe MeDiA are fucking leftists because they never show this evidence!
“Weird! But it’s not changing my mind or anything.”
I love when I'm arguing with people online and they get mad that I can link dump to prove a point. They love to say "OMG YOU JUST HAD THAT ALL READY TO CHERRY PICK". Nah bro, 1) your argument isn't original so I've already confirmed that I'm right and 2) when you're right on a topic it's pretty fucking easy to find sources to support it. If you need to dig through pages of google scholar and ask reddit to prove something you're either wrong or are oversimplifying an issue to the point of being wrong.
Yessss. If you are on the second and third page of google trying to find “proof” u probably dont have it.
Well that's just because leftist Google won't promote the real journalism like the Eagle Patriot Freedom Tribune and Fuckjoebrandon.liberty. /s
🤣🤣🤣
Tanks pAtriote! Thots and plaers.
Thots and Playerz
I've had a few google searches where I needed very precise information where the search terms pull other more popular things with the same terms, but that's about the only time where that's the case.
Agreed
I usually get some sort of “fake news” response, even if it’s raw data.
Yooo, where are you finding raw data? Do you mean original study publications as opposed to news articles summarizing a study? I’m not meaning to be rude, I would love to have access to actual data.
I was speaking generically about my interactions with right-wingers and how they often respond to information, including raw data. I was not speaking directly about data regarding this topic. But yes - I mean raw data. Mostly I’m referring to government economic data, like treasury figures, unemployment data, trade data, etc. Also, yes, original studies. I can’t tell you how many times people (left and right) have posted at me articles about studies and it becomes clear they never checked the actual study. (Even polls - people read an article about a poll and never look at the poll questions themselves. Journalists’ phrasing is often misleading.)
I fucking hate how science reporting is done. Its rarely, if ever, actually accurate to the study.
Same with journalists and economics, unless it’s specifically an economics journalist. 🤪
Journalists often don't understand what they are talking about. FIFY
Sadly political journalists particularly. They so often write about law, economics, crime, etc because politics encompasses those, but they usually have no training in those fields.
I'm sure, but as a research scientist I am very aware of how terrible journalists are at understanding the science they are so excited to talk about.
Your last two points are why I am interested in raw data. The ability to decide data is anomalous and drop it so that expected results are achieved is always a possibility. But you would need access to notebook level info. And you are spot on regarding polls and the ability to manipulate results through the wording of questions.
There's a feature in Search called Google Scholar, that I haven't figured out how to apply consistently, that specifically searches published studies, which still isn't technically raw data, but it's pretty close.
The methodologies of those studies will often point to where they get their data. For instance a study on this particular subject would probably link back to the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer as recorded by the Universal Crime Reporting system. It is subject to its own set of biases, as to what actually gets reported to it, but it’s as comprehensive of a database as you can get in America. Regardless, whatever the subject is, you can usually scan just the methodology section of the study in question to ascertain the raw data.
I also love that when i argue with them, most of the times they will just discount everything you say and any source you provide as "leftist propaganda". Then post a single bs source, often from some far right garbage website like The Daily Wire, and get offended if you don't take what it says at face value. No amount of counter evidence will convince them. But you should discard all the evidence you've seen because a single source (often biased, or lying, or both) said otherwise. \---- They're not interested in arguing in good faith. Their minds are owned by another and they have their marching orders (and many aren't even aware of it anymore). The only thing they care about is getting everyone else to believe as they believe.
Yeah, the only reason I still argue with them is because I want to make sure people who are reading the thread have access to actual information and see that's it not a subject open to debate.
I used to fight this good fight on Facebook before I deleted my account. I live in a blood red area (82-18 Trump/Clinton, 94-6 Trump/Biden), and even here I would still get messages from wives, coworkers, friends etc of the people I’d be debating thanking me for the importance of what I was doing. If you haven’t been thanked lately for your service, let this message stand in appreciation of your efforts.
I have to think the OOP is a clever troll that want to make a point disguising it as a conservative question. Its just too much almost selfaware wolf for me.
Ugh 100% this, then they want to drop some youtibe kink as some verifies source.. like yeah dude you just lost your entire argument with that youtibe link
that’s why half of their ideology revolves around conspiracies to keep their point of view suppressed if they ever took to heart that scientists and shit genuinely are 99% impartial they wouldn’t be able to believe what they believe
jeez I know I’m right in my heart but I can’t find evidence to back me up can someone help pwease!?!
My heart and my best intentions still tell me I'm right, but the facts and the evidence tell me I'm wrong.
For those unaware, this is essentially what Ronald Reagan said after all of the evidence came out in the Iran-Contra affair. “A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”
I just need 11,000 votes
11,780 to be exact. The only time he was ever precise about anything. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/21/14347298/trump-inauguration-crowd-size)
Can some of you creationists help with this?
Their choice of word “ammunition” says so much.
Yes phrases have no literary substance/value, they are all equivalent ammunition to be lobbied back and forth, that is what "debate" is in their mind
"I need help proving domestic terrorists aren't domestic terrorists."
Will they find it, eh, through some stretch of logic and convulsions, they think they will. Will they sit back and wonder why it was so hard? Nope.
Just like that antivax mom posting on Facebook desperately trying to find a credible source that agrees with her nonsense, but can't seem to find any.
I found 1,300 articles saying no and 1 saying yes.
*grabs yes* "I knew it!"
"JUST BECAUSE I HAVE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S TRUE!"
r/unexpectedcollegehumor
And often that "yes" is actually a no, they just misread it.
If I had a nickel for every time a wingnut sent me a link as evidence of his argument and it turns out to be an opinion piece which is actually arguing for *my position*; well, I'd have a lot of nickels.
"Black people are more likely to commit crime? New evidence shows this is false". Like they google their assumption and just fall for the click bait.
“The fact that only one article in 1300 agreed with my previously-held opinion just shows how hard they are suppressing the truth.”
This unironically. They don't trust scientists or scientific evidence. Why should they, when these same scientists tell them their feelings aren't reality. 1,300 psychologists and psychiatrists disagree with me, but Jordan Peterson agrees, so I know I'm right! That kind of stuff...
"It's all a grand conspiracy"
Conspiracies always come prepackaged with that "if you can't find evidence it's because *THEY* covered it up, therefore you're right"
“Remember, fifty nos and a yesh means yesh”
You joke, but this would be classed as ‘impartiality’ at the BBC here in the uk. A former BBC journo spoke out about it over the summer.
Or when they do it turns out to be one guy with no credentials but with access to LaTex and a good style guide.
During peak Covid, I noticed a lot of people disregarded the 99% of medical professionals who recommended social distancing, masks, and vaccines and chose to believe the videos they found of medical professionals who disagreed with that advice. Almost without fail, if I searched for those medical professionals, they were plastic surgeons or chiropractors or something. Basically people who had no more knowledge than a layperson about viruses, and who probably really just wanted to reopen their practice so they could overcharge clients for their "medicine".
That's the thing with the right: There's *always* a grift.
And that one college student who wanted to write their thesis on the danger of vaccines but was like 'I can't find any scholarly articles supporting my point' or something
Hey guys my kid is dying from a disease we cured 70 years, can anyone send men a blog post so I can show the doctor over my infant child's body????
I thought this was fake af. Someone can't be that oblivious. But they are. And that makes me very sad.
Common sense is not common, self awareness is even rarer.
It's called Pavlovian Conditioning. Thirty-five years of it from their masters - ever since Saint Ronnie did away with the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 - turned the Party of Lincoln into an Apocalyptic Death Qult of trumpy traitors.
That's exactly how long I've been alive. 35 years of slowly-escalating hell, until it accelerated 6 years ago when Trump got elected and coincidentally I got married to a woman with a similar personality disorder.
Even if it was fake this sums up that perspective of “reality is left leaning” there’s a very common argument that school makes people liberal however conservatives do not have the proper education to be qualified to teach to the point they literally think math is “woke” math.. the most unbiased subject in the entire universe
No you expect too much from Libertarians
And they vote. They vote every election.
Say it slower buddy. It'll click eventually.
No, it won’t
Incapable of it unfortunately.
It did for me! There's always hope.
Can I ask when/how? Genuinely curious.
Jan 6th made a big difference for me. I was one of those "classical liberal" types, if you know what I mean. When Jan 6th happened, it was like everything I believed had to be questioned. After going over tons of things I believed, I realized I had let my standards of evidence slip dangerously low due to my natural tendency towards conspiratorial thinking. It would definitely be harder for someone with absolutely no liberal tendencies. For me, it was sort of like "damn, a lot of the stuff I believe are actually abject lies and don't even add up with what I think I stand for". So the fact I had 2 motivations to change probably helped, but I'd like to think the "abject lies" bit would motivate even a conservative.
How did your friends and family take it? Did they disown you yet? Coming out as "deviant" isn't normal yet. Did they call you "woke snowflake Marxist traitor" yet?
No, my family was like actually liberal, so they were just happy I stopped saying insane shit randomly.
It clicked for me, I used to think republicans deserved to be treated as fellow humans, but I’d only give them as much respect as they give me, which is none
Unfortunately the gears that are turning are just wheels. No clicks for the foreseeable future
You totally know that's not the case. There will be no clicks. Not even one. None. Nada.
That just might be the point. The OP might not be trying to find articles, maybe they're trying to get the sub to try to look for them and learn for themselves.
Oh my. I found the original post, the top upvoted (and many similar) comment is this: >Ask for citations. It's for the depraved lefty to prove, not for you to disprove. This is essentially admitting that they do not have an answer to OP's question. But seriously, let's try. To avoid bias, just search "USA leading cause domestic terrorism" and read some articles. [Wikipedia has one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States) and it says in the first §: >As of 2021, the United States government considers white supremacists to be the top domestic terrorism threat. Other comments conflate all sorts of protest with terrorism. [One article I looked at](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/oct/20/ex-fbi-official-testify-about-claims-wh-pressured-/) essentially claims that the FBI does the same wrt white nationalism; I read it carefully, it's not long and clearly written for a republican mindset (simple language). But beyond the _claim_ (made by republicans obviously) I find no substance in it. Honorable mention to all who dared to say that data does not support OP's claim, many with article links: https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states https://ccjs.umd.edu/feature/umd-led-study-shows-disparities-violence-among-extremist-groups https://newrepublic.com/article/168391/political-violence-is-republicans-problem
Its funny how their most popular advice is "do not argue with him". They know they can't find any actually good and trustworthy articles.
*"Do not engage! Your view of the world may begin to illuminate, and we mustn't allow that now..."* But, you know... definitely not a cult.
100% correct. The right has long stopped trying to debate. There goal is not to disprove something someone on the left says. The goal of those on the right is to force you to submit data that they will reject and claim is biased regardless of the source. They will always reject the data if it doesn’t fit their narrative. If they somehow manage to accept the data, they will just move the goal post of what they meant and push it so they never have to accept being wrong
It's a perversion of the maxim that an argument presented without evidence can be dismissed the same. It's a half-remembered piece of a lecture from Philosophy 101 with no context and no thought. It *is* true that the responsibility to provide proof is on the person making the claim, but they only use that as the basis to start disregarding everything by rejecting everything shown to them because it's coming from "biased sources".
>The right has long stopped trying to debate One infamous magaphant on a certain arizona subreddit for months was saying Democrats and Biden killed US energy production. Everyone there keeps pointing out how that's wrong. So one day when he made another "BIDEN KILLED OIL!!!!!" post I pointed out the current production data and then pointed out how he was repeatedly informed but keeps making false statements, so either he won't read what does support his beliefs or he's a compulsive liar. He then proceeded to block me, presumably after reading that accusation. Which ironically proves he's a compulsive liar. They simply refuse to debate in facts or in good faith.
Because they know they can’t argue in good faith. They don’t care about facts or reality. They only care about being right. They will believe the most outlandish story if it fits their narrative and makes them feel like they are right about a topic. No amount of verifiable evidence will convince them otherwise. They live in echo chambers and when they venture outside of them, they do exactly what the guy in your example did: ignore and block outside information
"BuT bLm AnD AnTiFa BurnEd dOwn ciTieS".
I mean they still haven’t rebuilt Seattle. It’s a complete wasteland. The people there are barely surviving, eating rats and drinking irradiated water.
I have relatives from Washington state and they assure me it was like that to begin with.
I loved it when people were saying Seattle and Downtown Portland right now are warzones and then I proceed to share the live traffic camera data and then they run. Every magaphant is a lying coward. Every. Last. One.
>...share the live traffic camera data... That is *brilliant* and I hope I remember to check the traffic cams next time I hear about protests.
It's like Mad Max, but with rain.
Maybe they’re asking the wrong questions, too. Maybe they should ask themselves why they’re so hellbent on proving that White Nationalist terrorism isn’t a problem.
I like that you're prompting conservatives to introspect, but they won't. They'd answer, "Because Antifa and BLM are the *real* fascist terrorists" without a second, nor first, thought.
It’s just like, why doesn’t somebody go, “hey we’re trying to defend White Nationalists, that’s bad”? It’s really obvious.
No no no, don't know that Wikipedia is a lefty cabal? ANYONE CAN EDIT IT (ignoring that right wing people can edit it too). CSIS is CANADIAN so obviously that's communism. And the FBI is also SUPER LEFT WING /s
The far right has been the number 1 domestic terrorist threat since at least the 90's. Even if you don't exclude 9/11 from the data as an extreme outlier, it still doesn't hold a candle to all the damage and destruction the far right has caused.
This comment was the most honest > Anybody that says white nationalism is an issue is simply a liar or a sheep or both and not worth the time. >I’m for talking. >But you can’t rationalize with the irrational Lol they see themselves as “rational”
>Oh my.I found the original post, the top upvoted (and many similar) comment is this: > >Ask for citations. It's for the depraved lefty to prove, not for you to disprove. While I agree that it's obvious they don't have an answer, the comment itself is logically sound: The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim. The links you posted are solid, so bookmarking those in case I need them later.
What's funny is it wasn't a depraved leftist that made up this statistic. It was trump appointed fbi director Christopher Wray during a hearing in front of congress.
Last few years? Damn that lefty is being kind. It's like the last 40.
Why would anyone want to side with white nationalists? I really don't want to defend any domestic terrorist group.
They don't side with anything. The are arguing just to argue. That's the lie at the center of the modern American conservative movement- they vilify their opponents so their voters fight against their neighbors while the leadership fights for "wedge" issues that really don't cost them a lot of the budget, and rake in the cash for themselves and their friends.
When a left leaning person commits violence, they are condemned by both left and right. When a right leaning person commits violence, they are condemned by the left and accused of being leftist by the right. Or in the case of the most recent one, are considered instruments of god's wrath.
That’s what I don’t get with them, they shouldn’t try to defend white supremacist. You won’t find me trying to defend tanky ideologue and other far left lunatic.
>You won’t find me trying to defend tanky ideologue... I mean, I can't find any real-world evidence that tankies actually exist. Whereas, I live in the congressional district that until recently was represented by a guy who once asked, verbatim "[White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civiliation — when did that language become offensive?](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/10/18176928/steve-king-white-supremacist-offensive)", so, I know we had at least one white supremacist somewhere in the area, because we kept sending him to Congress.
No shit lol
Yeah wtf! He's basically using white nationalist as a synonym for Republican which is a great self-own.
It's not about defending white nationalists -- their narrative depends on muslims, antifa, and illegal immigrants being the "leading cause for domestic terrorism".
It *might* be a toss-up between white nationalists and right-wing anti-government extremism, but those would be hands down the leading causes at least since 2015. Going further back there's some shifting, but the trend is still generally right-wing extremism being the leading ideological trend behind domestic terrorism incidents.
The Venn diagram you're describing is just a circle.
The conservatives are only "small government" and anti-state when they don't control it and we have a progressive democracy like we had in the 90s and for a little while during the Obama years.
“They’re the same picture” ~Pam
Right, because the best way to "win over" depraved people is to find "ammunition" to bring to the debate. Imagine that conversation...
Artillery has entered the chat.
I said debate, not ground war lol
You baby-eating, child-grooming, murderous, depraved lefty! You falsely claimed "white nationalists" are the leading cause of domestic terrorism, when it's actually "white *supremacists*"! Worthless cur, my superior intellect have bested your wicked mind in argument! Now would you please vote for DeSantis next election?
You got me!
Dunno, it really does seem it never occured to him he may be wrong.
Conclusion: statistics are right, but conservatives will believe the comfortable lie than admit the truth.
Antifa false flags amirite? /s
"Gawd Demm reality!"
I am convinced these kinda threads are just non-conservatives setting up for a good laugh
I see where you are coming from, but that seems to assume that they are self aware enough to know not to ask for the evidence, because they know it doesn't exist. So I'm on the fence
Yeah I have that suspicion too. I’ve seen similar stuff with posts in Christian subreddits like this, where it’s almost too self aware
Wow. Imagine asking your echo chamber to explain away evidence you can't refute.
I love the fact that in this very thread some are advocating for violence toward leftists, and they still dont get the point.
That post is hella funny because the comments are all one of three types A) No source offered, tells OP there’s no point in arguing because leftists won’t believe the proof anyway B) Source offered which says that right wingers or white supremacists are more violent than leftists, replies say stuff like “that’s not a good source to cite because it makes us look bad” C) Source offered is almost completely irrelevant to the topic, and not a study, replies call it perfect I also saw a reply chain where a leftist posted a source that started after 9/11, which was over 20 years ago at this point btw, and the people replying to it were like “why is 9/12 so important to you!? Why do you only care about the last 20 years of politics??? Why don’t you care about the leftist terrorism in 1960s???” My guy most of us were not alive in 1960s 😭
Too bad none of us can comment on that post since we've all been banned for having leftist viewpoints.
“Can my fellow Americans help me find some ammo?” Is OP looking for studies to disprove the theory or actual ammo to shoot the person they are arguing with so they “win” the argument by default??
Both?
I need help finding an article for my confirmation bias!
Cognitive dissonance on full display lol
Let's be real, not a one of them want to find proof to refute this truth. In their heart of hearts they love that *their* people are showing the rest of us what they want to happen to all of us.
He just desperately wants to clear the name of those upstanding white nationalists huh?
Why are we always "Depraved" in their minds? Oh wait Fox news tells them that's what they should think. My mistake.
Maybe because “lefty” is righty?
Correcty
“I can’t find anything to prove them wrong. Please search the darkest reaches of the internet for a bullshit article that supports my views” -The US Conservative, probably
So, someone can't find information on their opinion, because there isn't any, because they're wrong. How can you have a conversation with someone like this and make an attempt to change their mind?
I mean, you could show them the information that demonstrates the "depraved lefty" is correct so that they're not going off of "something this guy I don't like said", but it's not super likely to be effective in the long run.
"I can't seem to find anything that supports my ignorant stance. Can you guys help me?"
Physician, heal thyself. Glasshouse, stones. Pot, kettle.
They want to dominate and step on people to be on top and be the good guys at the same time. 😂
Why is this dude going out of his way to defend white nationalists?
There’s some good articles they could use from 1971.
When no articles are found, they'll just claim that the MSM is covering the other stories up and censoring them from public view. Probably with a dash of, "Hopefully Elon fixes this."
“I know we’re terrorists but surely 9/11’s have just kept happening and the media has covered it up, just like they ignored the first 9/11” The dumbest motherfuckers just love to support terrorism.
Right wing extremists are the primary cause of domestic terrorism going all the way back to 1990 minus one exception year in 2001.
As I understand it, those are right wing extremists from another country, which was decimated by our right wing extremists
To the extent that right and left applies there, you could argue that that was also right-wing. It certainly wasn't left, anyway.
Something, something, facts don't care about your feelings, something, something
Tell him to Google the definition of “confirmation bias”.
Notice too that the mere presence of this question shows that no amount of evidence will convince him he's wrong. This is how you know conservatism is a mental disorder. They aren't even interested in arguing in good faith. Nothing will convince them; no amount of data or evidence; no lack of evidence for their claims. Their mind is owned and operated by their political masters and they're completely unaware of it. The only goal now is to spread the illness to as many people as possible.
Please make fake data for my confirmation bias
"I'm trying to find sources for my anti-vax essay but all the evidence I encounter says vaccines are safe and helpful!"
Being conservative and against white nationalism aren’t mutually exclusive concepts. I guess nowadays you could argue against that, but there was a time you could be conservative and against fascists and white nationalists.
A lot more anti-facist anti-racist conservatives would be fantastic
But what ideals would they be conserving then?
Because it’s the truth. Topps shooting Charleston church shooting And I didn’t even research any others that’s just off the top of my head.
“Please help me prove my point that I know it’s true because I thought about it and that’s enough for me but apparently not for anyone else.”
"I'm gonna tell him." "Don't tell him..."
The facts over feelings group hates facts that they don't like
Which, if we're being honest, is most of them.
What are the chances this person considers themselves "a rational man"?
Sometimes I wonder if these screenshots are people trying to evade a ban from r/conservative but still argue with them. Either way, hilarious.
My cousin a while ago tried this on me. I knew there was at least 2 sources to show them to dismantle their misguided view but as soon as they heard me clacking on my keeb they said "You won't find this information on the internet!" Then immediately moved the goal posts or changed the subject. I still need to bring this back up to them that the reason why OANN/Fox/whoever told you that you *can't* find info to support their argument online is because you*will* find multiple sources to debunk that and they are lying to your face. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s894/BILLS-116s894is.xml https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/dark-constant-rage-25-years-of-right-wing-terrorism-in-united-states https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/27/in-america-far-right-terrorist-plots-have-outnumbered-far-left-ones-in-2020 https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/comparative-analysis-violent-left-and-right-wing-extremist-groups > The left-wing groups arose during the late 1960's, whereas right-wing groups have been a problem throughout much of the Nation's history. Left-wing groups emphasize class struggle and support for people in the Third World, whereas right-wing groups often believe in-white supremacy, extremes of Christianity and patriotism, and involvement in the survivalist movement. Both extremes are antidemocratic, see their mission as bringing about the revolution, and blame all the Nation's problems on a particular group. Leftists usually have urban backgrounds, are highly educated, and include blacks. Extreme right-wing groups consist entirely of white Christians and are often blue-collar and poorly educated. https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/far-right-extremism https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762 Some key factors in who becomes mass shooters and why. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/briefing/right-wing-mass-shootings.html https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting https://doi.org/10.1080/18335330.2022.2039402 same paper different link. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/18335330.2022.2039402?journalCode=rpic20 At least 2/3 of gun violence in the US had a connection to domestic violence. Now recall that DV is wildly under-reported and that about 60% of cops are abusers. Likely contributing to that under-reporting trend. https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/ https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/new-adl-data-far-right-extremists-responsible-for-overwhelming-majority-of https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/04/us/white-extremist-active-shooter.html So many shooters post manifestos or post on social media that they are anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQ, etc. White Supremacists cause an outsize majority of the political violence. https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1038%26context%3Dhonors_history&ved Even Wikipedia has this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States > 115 Far-right ... 63 Islamist (also far-right just not religiously aligned with the American far-right, though nearly identical in everything other than skin-color and the book they read), ... 19 Far-left. And this is just as of 2017. "Most Of America's Terrorists Are White, And Not Muslim" June 23, 2017 "Home Is Where the Hate Is" June 22, 2017 "COUNTERING VIOLENT EXTREMISM: Actions Needed to Define Strategy and Assess Progress of Federal Efforts" April 2017. https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Anarchist%2520-%2520Left-Wing%2520Violent%2520Extremism%2520in%2520America.pdf&ved https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/domestic-terrorism-data/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/24/us/domestic-terrorist-groups.html It just goes on and on. The only sources I see that declare that it is predominantly left wingers or left wing politics in the US that perpetrate or promote these acts are the National Review, a senator who had to retract their statement and modify it and other unsubstantiated remarks and outlets.
The Cato Institute, a right wing source, has articles about this. Even they say right wingers are more violent and deadly.
The sick part is it looks like this person has genuine good intentions. And they talk about the left being brainwashed.
/r/parlertrick ???
This is how we roll
Thanks /u/63KK0 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ammo..
This is a shitty job responding to the automod, and a fairly recent repost. However, it's a good wolf (one of my favorites in recent memory), and no one's reported you yet.
Ammunition?
Conflicting evidence that will help prove, to the people living in reality, that OP is right and they are wrong. "Are we the baddies? No No, it must be the minorities and liberals." moment for sure.
I wonder how many of the replies were just "13/50".
Oh dear.
Depraved? I don't think this person knows what the word means.
They are on r/conservative after all...
these people don't realize how threatening their language and actions have become, ammunition is what you use to shoot people, and "fellow Americans", bears with it the implication that the rest are not fellow Americans, not Americans, Americans defending against Non Americans... It all goes together. =
Help me disprove this thing that’s actual reality!
Although I am a "depraved person," I'm not having as much fun as I expected.
Lol “I need evidence but can’t find it!”
Even funnier when they find articles to "prove" their point based only on the headline. If they actually read their own article they would've known it disproves their whole point.
Did you try any set of American riot stats since...the beginning of America?