Agreed. I looked at it after seeing a bunch of people being banned from it. I'm left-leaning, and it was too much for me. Hard pass.

Did I miss where OP is acting shocked?

I don't usually go around throwing out terms like "hive mind" and "echo chamber" but you definitely fell afoul of that sub's hive mind and threatened its echo chamber.

Oh no, indeed.

The Tea Party was a bunch of reactionary fucks who were scared a black man was elected president. What they are today I have no idea. Most went MAGA. As for libertarians, most of what I've seen of recent libertarians isn't libertarianism.

I was thinking maybe it was the feds accusation, as that cannot be proven and can be considered inflammatory... but nope. By denying having ever met a Nazi you are saying Nazis don't exist, and that is obviously something only Nazi scum would do. /s

Me too. There has definitely been a shift in Libertarianism in recent years. Personally, it started feeling different to me around 2008, when they started adopting Tea Party points.

Well, Dumptruck *is* threat to democracy. After he lost an election he cried like a bitch (which isn't the threat - just shameful) and convinced millions of people it was a conspiracy. And the fact that there was no evidence? Or all the evidence he had turned out to be fake? Just more conspiracy. Not to mention sending his mob to "fight like hell" and attempt to stop the electoral college certification. But people are trying to imprison him because he has *broken numerous laws.* Can you honestly say you think he hasn't broken the law?

I've noticed in recent years that "libertarians" are taking more right-wing stances, both on and off Reddit. Heck I noticed it in 2008 when the chairman of my county's LP recommended I look into the Tea Party. Things don't seem to have gotten any better since.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? I said he is well-spoken and able to reason, but is blind to his own biases. A lot of otherwise intelligent people become stupid when it comes to politics, religion, or other emotional subjects.

I agree that is what he is doing. Yet he is well-spoken and able to reason. His bias is blinding an otherwise intelligent person.

You have to stop focusing on the rhetoric, man. Stop thinking that because people disagree with you that they think a certain way.

>how me all the Democrats concerned about the larger number of the shootings, then ask yourself why you can’t find many if any. >Is it because they only care about the “gun restrictions” part and gang shootings don’t fit that part of their agenda so……they don’t care? I don't know any Democrats who aren't concerned about all shootings. Their answer to the problem often is restricting guns. You may see it as political, but it is what they see as the solution to a problem they care very deeply about. Espousing gun control is their way of showing they care, whether or not you choose to see it that way. As for bail funds, our Constitution allows for bail, for many reasons. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and to not be held prisoner without being convicted. The purpose of bail is to make sure someone shows up to trial, not to keep them off the streets. Bail funds meet the spirit of the concept. Have accused (and eventually proven in court) rapists been released because of bail funds? Yes. But the American justice system recognizes that bail is just.

He seems like a lot of people I know in real life. Intelligent in most matters, but completely biased and unable to see it when it comes to political matters.

>instead he just reaffirmed they only care about certain crimes that they can “campaign on,” as I already knew. Maybe consider that "rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, gun restrictions related to mass shootings..." are indeed taking crime seriously, and aren't just talking points.

That user most likely considers those "the type of crime that they can use for political propaganda" and therefore can be dismissed. He seems well meaning and intelligent, but his biases run deep.

Ah. The old apologize, and it better be a real apology and we'll know the difference, and we will consider letting you return. I've only run into that once. The atheist sub wanted me to apologize for saying "not all religious people are bad." Fuck that nonsense.

I want to agree with your comment, but then you made a generalization about liberals that isn't always true.

Mostly. Enough I am still here, anyway. I do miss that crazy sub that got banned, though.

It's you! I didn't recognize you without the state-mandated twinks!

LGBTQQIP2SA is a real thing, though.

Bending over backwards to include everyone is seen as mockery. Is there a word for something that is both hilarious and sad?

That "study" uses "many" and "most" a lot without giving actual numbers. That's a propaganda study.