4 ms·

To address your completely re-written post: > No. Reddit's user base is extremely liberal and hostile to conservative candidates and values as evident by the e

To address your completely re-written post: > No. Reddit's user base is extremely liberal and hostile to conservative candidates and values as evident by the echo-chamber that is /r/politics, which fails to meaningfully support pro-conservative news. There are literally no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts from the past month[1], only libertarian, liberal and anti-conservative. The paradigm or technology platform dramatically favors a very specific demographic, and is ultimately a disservice to democracy by disproportionately favoring that demographic's POV. If you fall into that demographic, I imagine it would be very difficult to resist the potential power play to further your own views. I'll address it here as I did in my other post... 1) If you feel libertarians are not "conservatives" it is because you are a social conservative. Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the only bias you've presented. Fiscal conservatism is a libertarian belief, a conservative belief, and is represented by the positive news about Rand Paul. 2) > There are literally no pro-conservative and no anti-liberal top posts from the past month[1] > [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/ That doesn't demonstrate the bias you claim as it is based on overall score including time in the ranking algorithm. You can see it by the order its displayed on the page. Result #4? 2794 which is greater than results #2 & #3. The correct link would be: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month :/ Like, I get you are trying at this point but its really hard to be nice to someone who seems only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit his world view. I even had to correct the link you offered because the link you presented this time still doesn't match the statement you made. Do you even understand the problem I have with you is: 1) You make conservatives look bad by being this ignorant. 2) You are painting me as a "hostile liberal" when my problem with you is the fact you have a fact-free opinion of the world and actively misrepresent and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations? > EDIT #2: As a final point, being global in nature, Reddit will always encourage an english-speaking non-US-centric world-oriented political-view. This is precisely, as a nation, what we don't want, to provide a global avenue for anti-US political subversion masquerading as populace rhetoric. Populist rhetoric isn't inherently "subversive". The fact you are convinced that Reddit is an avenue for "anti-US political rhetoric" means you frankly don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" The right to exercise political speech is a fundamental right both for Americans and everyone else in the world under the Constitution. The fact you would go against that makes you: 1) Un-American. 2) Not-A-Conservative. Protecting constitutional rights is a fundamental conservative belief. If you are opposed to people exercising a fundamental constitution right, such as the freedom of speech, you are a horrible American. 3) You are precisely why the Constitution exists. To protect the rest of us from people who think the ability to have an honest, public conservation about political views is a bad thing. You do realize that is a large part of why we revolted against the British in the first place, right? An inability to influence politics legally via speech and parliamentary representation? EDIT: Sean I get rate limited in these threads and can't reply. Anyway, I read the "as a nation" bit as policy advocacy. Maybe that wasn't his intent but that seems to have been his way of phrasing that intent previously.

eldude 11y ago
> To address your completely re-written post: Despite your fixation on it, it in no way invalidates my point. It was one sentence that's acknowledged in the edit, and I openly acknowledge it as "ignorance" further down. What would you prefer I replace the text of "Edit #1" with? > Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the only bias you've presented. Thank you for partially agreeing, but you are illustrating your ignorance and seem "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit [your] world view." Specifically, you are ignorant to the fact that libertarian monetary policies are not interchangeable or equivalent to conservative monetary policies. Just one example is that libertarians are isolationists, while conservatives tend to be interventionists. You also seem completely ignorant to the fact that libertarians are neither liberal, nor conservative, but in fact libertarian, though from your POV (and those on Reddit I would suspect), libertarians probably are what you consider "conservative." > https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month That's the link I intended ("top posts from the past month"). If you were not so blinded with bias, you would recognize that your link proves my point and illustrates that you are "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit [your] world view." > its really hard to be nice to someone Really? I have no difficulty politely discussing the issue with you despite your clear ignorance, anti-conservative bigotry, myopathy and that you are wrong and misrepresent all the facts I am presenting. I have said nothing negative about liberalism at any point. > 1) You make conservatives look bad by being this ignorant. You make liberals look bad by being this ignorant, and arguably worse through your tone and difficulty with not demonizing me. > 2) You are painting me as a "hostile liberal" when my problem with you is the fact you have a fact-free opinion of the world and actively misrepresent and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations? You are clearly hostile and liberal. You are having difficulty being nice and instead of focusing on the topic, go on to mischaracterize me as "Un-American," "horrible American," "opposed to [the 1st Ammendment]," dishonest and opposed to honest public political discussion, which is self-evidently false as I am presently engaging in one. I did provide a fact, I'm sorry you are ignoring it. The facts in the link as discussed stand. > and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations? Again, ignoring the facts. See "EDIT #1: Okay, /r/politics is a US-only forum. Supporting facts updated." and above, "What would you prefer I replace the text of "Edit #1" with?" I will however assume this is not due to some reading comprehension on your part and instead fault your myopathy or hostility. > Populist rhetoric isn't inherently "subversive". The fact you are convinced that Reddit is an avenue for "anti-US political rhetoric" means you frankly don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment. Lol, geez man. Did I say any of that? I sound pretty terrible when you discuss me. I said, within the context of US-elections, a global opinion site could be an avenue for subversive rhetoric masquerading as something else. I love how you rail on me for misrepresenting things in ignorance, yet you have a literal mischaracterizing misquote: "anti-US political rhetoric". You seem to pervasively disregard the facts to support your opinion. I said "anti-US political subversion", and if you don't think that exists, then you don't understand politics or power. I'd be happy to recommend some reading if you need education. > The fact you would go against that makes you [...] Un-American [,...] opposed to people exercising a fundamental constitution right [,...] a horrible American [,...] think the ability to have an honest, public conservation about political views is a bad thing Wow. Alright, enough, you've gone off the rails. You're no longer discussing the topic and just flat out doing everything you can to mischaracterize me by attacking my character. Thank you for proving my point in absolutely every way. While it's possible your intentions are honest, you are clearly misguided and are ignorant of both the facts and from your demeanor, probably malicious.

eldude 11y ago

> To address your completely re-written post: Despite your fixation on it, it in no way invalidates my point. It was one sentence that's acknowledged in the edit, and I openly acknowledge it as "ignorance" further down. What would you prefer I replace the text of "Edit #1" with? > Yes, Reddit is not friendly to social conservatives but that is really the only bias you've presented. Thank you for partially agreeing, but you are illustrating your ignorance and seem "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit [your] world view." Specifically, you are ignorant to the fact that libertarian monetary policies are not interchangeable or equivalent to conservative monetary policies. Just one example is that libertarians are isolationists, while conservatives tend to be interventionists. You also seem completely ignorant to the fact that libertarians are neither liberal, nor conservative, but in fact libertarian, though from your POV (and those on Reddit I would suspect), libertarians probably are what you consider "conservative." > https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/top/?sort=top&t=month That's the link I intended ("top posts from the past month"). If you were not so blinded with bias, you would recognize that your link proves my point and illustrates that you are "only interested in attempting to misrepresent the facts to fit [your] world view." > its really hard to be nice to someone Really? I have no difficulty politely discussing the issue with you despite your clear ignorance, anti-conservative bigotry, myopathy and that you are wrong and misrepresent all the facts I am presenting. I have said nothing negative about liberalism at any point. > 1) You make conservatives look bad by being this ignorant. You make liberals look bad by being this ignorant, and arguably worse through your tone and difficulty with not demonizing me. > 2) You are painting me as a "hostile liberal" when my problem with you is the fact you have a fact-free opinion of the world and actively misrepresent and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations? You are clearly hostile and liberal. You are having difficulty being nice and instead of focusing on the topic, go on to mischaracterize me as "Un-American," "horrible American," "opposed to [the 1st Ammendment]," dishonest and opposed to honest public political discussion, which is self-evidently false as I am presently engaging in one. I did provide a fact, I'm sorry you are ignoring it. The facts in the link as discussed stand. > and completely rewrite your posts to remove those misrepresentations? Again, ignoring the facts. See "EDIT #1: Okay, /r/politics is a US-only forum. Supporting facts updated." and above, "What would you prefer I replace the text of "Edit #1" with?" I will however assume this is not due to some reading comprehension on your part and instead fault your myopathy or hostility. > Populist rhetoric isn't inherently "subversive". The fact you are convinced that Reddit is an avenue for "anti-US political rhetoric" means you frankly don't understand the value and purpose of the 1st amendment. Lol, geez man. Did I say any of that? I sound pretty terrible when you discuss me. I said, within the context of US-elections, a global opinion site could be an avenue for subversive rhetoric masquerading as something else. I love how you rail on me for misrepresenting things in ignorance, yet you have a literal mischaracterizing misquote: "anti-US political rhetoric". You seem to pervasively disregard the facts to support your opinion. I said "anti-US political subversion", and if you don't think that exists, then you don't understand politics or power. I'd be happy to recommend some reading if you need education. > The fact you would go against that makes you [...] Un-American [,...] opposed to people exercising a fundamental constitution right [,...] a horrible American [,...] think the ability to have an honest, public conservation about political views is a bad thing Wow. Alright, enough, you've gone off the rails. You're no longer discussing the topic and just flat out doing everything you can to mischaracterize me by attacking my character. Thank you for proving my point in absolutely every way. While it's possible your intentions are honest, you are clearly misguided and are ignorant of both the facts and from your demeanor, probably malicious.