[andreigheorghe]

One is a fake account pushing misinformation, the other is a real person sharing their succinct, if low signal, opinion. So, not really the same thing. This thread is a dumpster fire for sure, but it's disingenuous of you to try to "both sides" it in this day and age when online discourse is being DDoSed by trolls like OP.

[toasterlovin]

Thinking that "conservative victimization" is "par for the course" is a comment that exists at precisely the same level of discourse as OP. This stance is refuted in literally the same thread (where someone engages in liberal victimization with, "I wish conservatives had an actual reason to feel like victims, because it would that the rest of the country is back on track.").

"Both sides" applies here.

[andreigheorghe]

You keep ignoring the fact that it's a baby account pushing a agenda that's ridiculously off topic. In no way is that the same as someone's biased opinion, no matter how much you try to force that point. Are you seriously not aware that we live in the middle of a misinformation war?

[whateveracct]

> You keep ignoring the fact that it's a baby account pushing a agenda that's ridiculously off topic.

No point expecting good faith arguments in a bad faith situation

[toasterlovin]

> You keep ignoring the fact that it's a baby account pushing a agenda that's ridiculously off topic.

No, I'm not ignoring that. I am simply not commenting on it, since you did such a good job of calling it out for the bullshit that it is. But the person I was responding to having an established account doesn't make their contribution any higher value. It's the actual comment, not the person making it, that determines the comment's value. And stating, without any evidence, that somehow conservatives claiming victimization is par for the course is about as low value as a comment can get. There's nothing useful or insightful about it. It's lazy, tribal thinking.

> Are you seriously not aware that we live in the middle of a misinformation war?

Part of the misinformation war that you refer to is the left wing using their utter domination of prestige media outlets to marginalize right wing ideas and viewpoints in the popular discourse. The left propagandizes in the articles and the right propagandizes in the comment section and on social media.

[andreigheorghe]

> stating, without any evidence, that somehow conservatives claiming victimization is par for the course is about as low value as a comment can get

> the left wing using their utter domination of prestige media outlets to marginalize right wing ideas and viewpoints in the popular discourse

If you can't see the irony here then I can't help you.

Also, the "marginalized right wing ideas" meme is getting old. The only people who are deplatformed are the ones that are inciting hate and spreading literally fake news. Are those the kind of right wing ideas that you're worried about being marginalized, or did you have some examples about the left wing media cabal censoring ideas about how much of a role government should play in society, and how much we should be taxed? Be more specific if you want to be taken seriously.

[toasterlovin]

FWIW, you’re holding my opinions to a higher degree of scrutiny than your own. You’re requiring me to provide evidence and a degree of argumentation and elaboration that you have not required of yourself. For instance, you have claimed that there is a disinformation war and you seem to be implying that it is being perpetrated by the right (which is actually a common trope that is used to marginalize the right wing; “the only reason Trump won is because of the Russians”, etc.). Yet you have not provided any evidence for your position at all; you have merely stated it. That said, here goes:

There are three major national newspapers in the US: NYT, WaPo, and WSJ. The only conservative one, the WSJ, is primarily a business paper and not as widely consumed or influential as the other two. There is only one right wing TV news outlet: Fox News. MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC are all left wing. Every single night time comedy or current events show is left wing (one late night host even referred to Trump’s mouth as “Putin’s cock holster” and is still on the air!). There are almost zero publicly out right wing actors, writers, or musicians. There are no prestigious, top tier national magazines which are right wing (The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone, etc.).

Here are marginalized right wing ideas: that large scale low-skill immigration is bad for low-skill workers (marginalized by calling people who believe this racists), that having biological men compete in women’s sports is unfair or that allowing men to use female restrooms because of some unverifiable claim about what is happening in their head is not safe (both marginalized by calling people who believe them transphobes), that business owners should be allowed to not perform services that violate their religious beliefs (marginalized by calling people homophobes).

[whateveracct]

Do you deny that those ideals stem from hate for others & systemic harm to the various suspect classes you mention?

A common argument I hear is that since right-wing leaders aren't explicitly being racist or sexist or whatever, that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, be charitable. Maybe we're misunderstanding them.

But bad actors subsist on the benefit of the doubt. And the American right-wing has a strong case for being a bad actor against a large swath (arguably the majority) or the American people.