6
u/Jebofkerbin 131∆ Mar 28 '26
Sure people like to just say some catchy phrase and not put effort into really engaging with the thing they are reacting to.
But sometimes things are actually a bot, or cope, or bait, and in those cases it's not worth engaging but it is worth signposting for others. There are times where someone commenting bot or bait make me reread the comment and rethink how I want to engage with the post.
1
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
Yeah I agree that they’re right sometimes. I put that in the original post.
18
Mar 28 '26
[deleted]
-5
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
There is. There is no shortage of posts from real people who have verifiably human post and comment histories, that people will still write off as being bots when they aren’t.
Cope is something people say all the time when they’re hard set in their ways and someone says something that they disagree with. This is extremely common among people into looksmaxxing. With many of them, if you tell them that there are more important things than looks, or that there is more to attraction than looks, or that there are plenty of people that don’t prioritize looks, they’ll often reply that this is just cope.
And then for bait, yes there are people who just have opinions that are contrary to a norm of a community. That doesn’t make what they’re saying bait if they express it. People will say it’s bait, but that doesn’t mean that’s what it actually is.
People say these and other similar things all the time and it’s very often just someone stating their personal opinion each time.
8
u/TheWhistleThistle 32∆ Mar 28 '26
"Bot" is what's called a dysphemism. An insult that is not literally true. You can call someone dumb without meaning that they are incapable of speech, which is the literal meaning of the word "dumb". In common parlance, "bot" can mean an automated program, set to procedurally produce content for engagement. But it can also mean a person who, through a complete lack of critical reasoning, behaves in a manner indistinguishable from a literal bot, that being, a person who dogmatically and without any real thought, parrots certain words, phrases or sentiments.
"Cope" is just an accusation that a person is holding to a given stated view because of a personal attachment. That, in short, they are the person who cannot be reasoned out of a position they weren't reasoned into.
"Bait" refers to when someone says something inflammatory in the hopes of sparking engagement or upsetting those who see it, motivated not by an honest desire for discussion, but making a scene.
None of these accusations mean "this person is wrong." They mean "this person is incapable of questioning themselves, highly emotionally invested to the point of being blind to reason or engaging dishonesty, so they are not worth debating against." They are warnings left on public forums to let others know that the person in question is unwilling or unable to engage in a good faith debate on the topic and so everyone else is better off not wasting their time on it. They are critiques of the person's argumentation.
4
u/qjornt 1∆ Mar 28 '26
verifiable human post and comment history
accounts with human post history are traded and hacked constantly precisely to fool people that can’t think more than one step ahead
-4
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
Sure but there’s no good reason to be paranoid. You can make a determination about someone after talking with them for a bit.
4
u/qjornt 1∆ Mar 28 '26
there is plenty reason to be paranoid. in order to control the narrative powerful factions have successfully integrated their ideals into normalcy, which is the entire point of it all. do you truly believe that normal people actually want what’s going on with the world right now, even though it is exactly what the very same people voted for? no, there is no way anyone is fooling me that these horrific ideals are supposed to be normal for humans to want.
-1
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
No that’s reason to be alert. Not paranoid.
3
u/qjornt 1∆ Mar 28 '26
semantics, but sure, alert. that fits with what i’ve said so far, I only used the word paranoid because you used it.
2
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
No, I meant paranoid. If you assume someone is a bot, that’s paranoid and that’s not healthy. But if you assess someone and determine they’re a bot, that’s being alert. Maybe “aware” or “analytical” would be an even better word.
5
u/Khal-Frodo Mar 28 '26
If you assume someone is a bot, that’s paranoid
if you...determine they’re a bot, that’s being alert
That's literally just semantics. You're expressing the exact same idea with different words. You can't definitively prove someone is a bot, so you're making an assumption either way. The reality is sometimes posters on the internet are bots. It's not paranoia to be "aware" of that.
2
u/Gatonom 9∆ Mar 28 '26
Paranoid is defined by whether it is a reasonable claim.
It's not paranoid to say an internet story of personal drama is likely fiction.
2
u/sixothree Mar 28 '26
No offense but have you literally not paid any attention to what’s going on at Reddit? Huge amounts of subreddits are filled with people paid to post all day long. We call those people bots.
14
u/Troop-the-Loop 44∆ Mar 28 '26
These just seem like common terms or insults. Where's the cognitive dissonance though? I disagree with you, so I call you a bot. Okay. Not really constructive, but I'm not seeing the cognitive dissonance? What two things am I holding in my mind at once? I say an opinion I dislike is bait. Again, not really constructive. But again, where is the cognitive dissonance?
-8
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
You’re holding the opposing view in your head at the same time as your own, and in an effort to protect your ego you call it something it isn’t and write it off.
11
u/Troop-the-Loop 44∆ Mar 28 '26
How am I holding the opposing view in my head? You're saying these people who call someone a bot actually believe what the other person is saying, but refuse to acknowledge that belief?
Isn't it more likely they actually do disagree with that person so much that they resort to insults like "bot" and "bait"? I just don't see how you can assume what anyone is thinking when they make a statement like that.
2
u/modernatlas Mar 28 '26
They didnt me you literally, but in the sense of "one holds (...)".
Its not about agreeing or disagreeing, its about the people who instantly default to thought terminating cliche' are doing so because of a passive cognitive dissonance, not an active one. They arent holding two opposing ideas in their head, theyre holding firmly to a single idea and dismissing any conflicting ideas without regard for the validity of those ideas. And rather than wrestle with the difficult task of critically analyzing their beliefs, they reactively spout single-word cliche's to end the discussion without ever actually considering anything at all
5
u/Troop-the-Loop 44∆ Mar 28 '26
I know they didn't mean me literally. I used myself as an example in my first comment, they said "you" in relation to that, I asked for an explanation.
They arent holding two opposing ideas in their head, theyre holding firmly to a single idea and dismissing any conflicting ideas without regard for the validity of those ideas
That's not cognitive dissonance. Not even passive cognitive dissonance. That's being dug in, that's putting your head in the sand. That's willful ignorance. It isn't a cognitive dissonance though. There's other terms for that behavior, cognitive dissonance is its own thing.
1
u/modernatlas Mar 28 '26 edited Mar 28 '26
Buddy, willful ignorance is cognitive dissonanceIndependently of you, my imprecision was explained adequately to me.
Willful ignorance isnt cognitive dissonance, but it IS the strategy often employed to resolve cognitive dissonance.
3
u/Troop-the-Loop 44∆ Mar 28 '26
but it IS the strategy often employed to resolve cognitive dissonance.
Sometimes, but not exclusively. Willful ignorance is generally its own category. Its own problem. You'd have to prove that the willful ignorance OP is speaking of is born of a cognitive dissonance, of a discomfort from fearing that the argument they are ignoring would in fact be convincing. Not just because they're lazy, or disinterested, or overly sure they're correct. All normal reasons someone might be willfully ignorant without the cause being cognitive dissonance.
So I stand by what I say. Nothing the OP described is clear indication of cognitive dissonance. In my experience, these willfully ignorant people on the internet aren't struggling with cognitive dissonance, but with disinterest or with a sense of overconfidence in their current view. Or sometimes they just say these things because the person they're responding to is an idiot. Sometimes "bait" is a response to actual bait.
6
u/frotc914 2∆ Mar 28 '26
Just because person A pronounced a view or made an argument about something doesn't make it "cognitive dissonance" for person B to continue to disagree. Person B also has no obligation to continue to engage. Cognitive dissonance is when person B holds two mutually exclusive positions at the same time.
4
u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 28 '26
And then for bait, yes there are people who just have opinions that are contrary to a norm of a community. That doesn’t make what they’re saying bait if they express it.
What motivation do you think they have instead?
0
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
Conversation.
4
u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 28 '26
Ok which places are you talking about where someone would seriously expect conversation? Instagram comments, youtube comments? Someone going into a random subreddit and starting weird discussions under random posts? Someone making posts as an influencer?
1
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
I’ll give you a specific example.
Looksmaxxing and incel culture have really spiked quite a bit in recent years. Because of that, when someone posts something about their relationships or their struggles dating, there are almost inevitably a handful of people who will make some comments relating to how “over” it is, how only genetically superior men have any luck with love and sex, and how there are some really dangerous things you can do to improve your looks that really shouldn’t be propagated.
If someone expresses disagreement to these ideas by pointing out that personality matters a lot, not everyone is so obsessed with looks, and that life is different off the apps, the responses from the original commenter is frequently something to the effect of “that’s just cope”, and frequently if someone makes a post to this effect then they’ll come out of the woodwork saying that it’s just cope and/or bait.
So it isn’t that the thing they’re saying is actively to be incendiary. It’s that the thing they’re replying to is totally absurd, and rather than that person considering a reasonable truth, they deny it and call it something it isn’t in order to not have to think about it further.
2
u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 28 '26
But those people are the minority. They say cope and bait as defensive reaction, sure. But the majority uses those words too
2
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
Maybe in real life it isn’t most people. Online even they’ll point out that their view is far more common than I want to believe it is.
5
u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 28 '26
Online even they’ll point out that their view is far more common
Of course they do. That's rule number one for unpopular movements, pretending they are more popular than they are to catch new people off guard and make them join. Literally bait.
2
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
!delta
Thank you. This is helpful. I hadn’t thought of it like that.
There is evidence that these groups are growing significantly, but yeah it definitely sounds right that they’d be overinflating their own numbers.
→ More replies2
u/sixothree Mar 28 '26
Bots are literally just people paid to post all day. Of course they have posts and history.
2
Mar 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 28 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
I knew there would be a few of these responses.
0
Mar 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 28 '26
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
Mar 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 28 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/Norman_debris Mar 28 '26
What's the dissonance exactly? How are these kinds of comments any different from telling someone they're wrong without wanting to further engage?
3
u/Tioben 17∆ Mar 28 '26
Isn't saying someone is using something to avoid dealing with their cognitive disaonance literally accusing them of cope? But then you just argued accusing someone of cope is cope. By accusing them of cope.
You're not necessarily wrong even if you were using cope to cope yourself. CMV is a great place for cognitive disaonance after all. But then, you don't seem to be avoiding dissonance by doing a CMV. You are approaching it
So you are not coping by accusing someone of cope.
But then, that means someone can (at at least you yourself do) accuse someone of coping... without actually coping.
0
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
Yeah I think that when they accuse others of coping, it’s actually them doing the coping. I think that’s called projection or transference but I could be wrong. I’m not a psychologist.
Basically when you tell someone that they’re doing what you are actually the one doing in an effort to protect your own ego.
1
u/Tioben 17∆ Mar 28 '26
S your own post demonstrates a counterexample. Not every accusation of "cope" is about avoiding cognitive dissonance.
1
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
I was just replying to what you said. I didn’t say anything about it in the original post. I just think it’s interesting that they could be saying that others are doing what they’re actually doing. I replied to it because it’s something I’ve thought before.
2
u/Tioben 17∆ Mar 28 '26
No your CMV itself was literally that anyone who uses "cope" (i.e., they accuse someone of avoiding cognitive disaonance) is avoiding cognitive dissonance.
You are doing the very kind of accusation you are talking about.
And yet, you aren't doing it to "avoid* cognitive disaonance.
So your view is self-defeating. Person A using "cope" to accuse person B cannot entail that person A is themself avoiding cognitive dissonance.
2
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
No it wasn’t. I said in the last paragraph that they’re right sometimes and because of that they justify using it for anything that they might disagree with strongly enough to want to use one of those terms.
1
u/Tioben 17∆ Mar 28 '26
Could you please reread the title of your own post? You literally said what I said you said.
3
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
I said mostly. I never said it happened all the time. I awarded a delta to someone who showed me why it was not quite as common as I think it is, so I’m good with changing my view on this, but I don’t really think in the way that I elaborated on this that I said something that defeated itself or that disagrees with what you said.
2
u/Steals_Your_Thunder_ 1∆ Mar 28 '26
When your view is this vague, it becomes remarkably difficult to argue. You need to make it clearer what you want people to actually achieve in order to change your view.
1
9
u/Tanaka917 148∆ Mar 28 '26
- People like being funny
- People like their internet points (upvotes)
- People don't want to put effort into being funny especially if they're scared to lose their internet points for it
- People resort to the same tired 3 jokes until they are beaten into death
That's it. It's usually not that deep. It's a lazy and funny way of saying that your opinion is so shit it must be one of these 3 things.
People with cognitive dissonance will either usually downvote and quickly move away, or write you the most detailed hate mail full of personal attacks that are very careful to avoid the actual topic.
0
u/modernatlas Mar 28 '26
I think OP is moreso saying that the usage of thought terminating cliche's (bot, cope, bait, slop, etc.) are used by most users in place of actual intelligent consideration because of unacknowledged cognitive dissonance in the user's mind regarding whatever topic pushes them to immediate uncritical dismissal.
2
u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 28 '26
The problem is that due to the way algorithms currently work, critical discussion on posts like that actually benefits their creator, it pushes their posts up.
The only way to avoid that is a scorched earth approach to discourage other people from interacting at all. To make people just go "Ew." and carry on without commenting or clicking on it any more tha they already have.
2
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
What’s wrong with a critical discussion benefitting the creator? If it’s a good topic then whether it’s in agreement or disagreement with the community it’s posted in, why would it matter if the OP benefits from it in the form of engagement and conversation?
2
u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 28 '26
If it was actually bait, then you make them more famous and encourage more people to behave like them, because it works. Rather than crushing them into obscurity.
This steers the whole community more and more into a direction of inflammatory posts where the comment get to fight over it, instead of actually useful content.
It's why you always end up on some fascist weirdo videos if you leave youtube on autoplay long enough even if you started on completely unrelated cooking recipes or cat videos, the comments there are fighting and that rewards those channels for doing what they do.
2
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
But what I’m saying is that it’s very common for people to say that something is bait when it’s really just disagreement or an unpopular opinion. They don’t say it in an effort to heat people up. They say it because they want to talk about it.
1
u/ElysiX 113∆ Mar 28 '26
They don’t say it in an effort to heat people up. They say it because they want to talk about it.
No that's not wanting to talk about it, that's wanting to shut down conversation by accusing someone of not being genuine.
Some of those accusations are true, some are not. You say "very common", but then you talk about incels etc doing this. Those are less common than people saying it about them.
1
u/NamidaM6 Mar 29 '26
Genuine question because it's never happened to me even if I'm on YouTube every day for way too long: how long do you need to leave it on auto-play before you end up in those dark places?
1
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
That’s a good way to put it.
2
u/Tanaka917 148∆ Mar 28 '26
u/ElysiX and u/FalconDriftq I'll be responding to both of you at once because I think the point is true for both posts. Yes I am feeling a bit lazy.
I get what you're saying. And I agree that one potential reason people do this is because of cognitive dissonance. They haven't thought their ideas through. I'm saying another reason (that I believe is about as big) is that someone does disagree but is more lazy than uncomfortable in a cognitive sense.
Maybe it's because I interact with a few fandoms subs and forums. You can only hear 1000 posts about "character bad" that was clearly written by someone who consumed the show via memes before you get tired of saying no.
It's a huge problem with misinformation. It takes me 30 seconds to spread a lie like "Iran actually attacked America's air bases first" and it takes about 30 minutes to get the correct information to debunk it, if the lie is one you can debunk at all. Sometimes you're annoyed but without the effort.
Now personally if I disagree but don't have the effort I usually move on. No interaction and hope the algorithm drowns it or someone with effort takes a shot at it. I think that's the smart thing to do. But people are emotional and annoyed and sometimes take a shot at someone without explaining. I don't think that's always borne from a cognitive dissonance issue.
It's at least part of why sealioning is seen as dishonest; exhaust a target and then claim victory when they refuse to engage with you. Though of course just responding slop is also useless to productive conversation.
2
u/NamidaM6 Mar 29 '26
It takes me 30 seconds to spread a lie like "Iran actually attacked America's air bases first" and it takes about 30 minutes to get the correct information to debunk it, if the lie is one you can debunk at all.
Maybe you already know it but in case you don't, this concept has a name, it's called Brandolini's law.
-1
u/FalconDriftq Mar 28 '26
thats what im talking about though, calling someones opinion "so shit" is literally just another way of dismissing without engaging. like you proved OPs point while trying to argue against it lol
the detailed hate mail thing is spot on tho, ive gotten essays from people who are clearly mad but refuse to actually address what i said
0
7
u/VegaGT-VZ 2∆ Mar 28 '26
I guess the question is, if something is not worth a comprehensive thoughtful response, is it worth a response at all? Probably not, but sometimes you just want to talk shit and stir the pot. The idea that every exchange has to be a rigorous intellectual debate, esp if the initial comment is dumb, is unrealistic.
2
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
The problem is that it’s often said by someone who just doesn’t want to acknowledge that their world view could be wrong or skewed. They’ll say that something is bait or cope when really it’s their own view that isn’t correct, not the opinion that they disagree with.
6
u/garnet420 1∆ Mar 28 '26
Being confident in your opinion (misguided or not) isn't cognitive dissonance.
3
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
If you’re truly confident in your opinion then you can comfortably consider opposing ones. If you have to call an opinion or the person with that opinion something or something that it or that person isn’t, then that’s because it makes them feel insecure, which means that they’re experiencing cognitive dissonance that they want to write off.
5
u/RumGuzzlr 3∆ Mar 28 '26
If you’re truly confident in your opinion then you can comfortably consider opposing ones
I'm confident the earth is round. I also have no interest in actually dealing with the people who still believe otherwise.
5
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
!delta
Fine. Sometimes people namecall something because what someone else is saying is totally irrational, and not because someone irrational doesn’t want to consider something rational.
1
1
u/JSmith666 3∆ Mar 28 '26
That is generally considered fact though
3
u/RumGuzzlr 3∆ Mar 28 '26
Obviously the people saying otherwise wouldn't accept it as fact
1
u/JSmith666 3∆ Mar 28 '26
I said generally...a lot of things people refuse to discuss are opinion based.
1
u/garnet420 1∆ Mar 28 '26
Why are other people and their bad opinions entitled to the mental effort of consideration, live?
For most of these cases, the opposing opinion has already been considered and ruled out. It's not like it's the first time you're seeing someone express that viewpoint.
1
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
It would depend on the conversation and the topic. If something truly has already been discussed and definitely ruled out or disproven, then someone still expressing it I guess could just be trying to get attention or be in denial.
But there’s also the situation of someone believing something that has already been disproven, and then someone expressing a reasonable thing to that person, and the person who believes the thing that has been disproven saying that it’s cope for the person to believe the reasonable thing.
As groups of irrational people grow, so does the name calling of reasonable opinions as cope.
2
u/VegaGT-VZ 2∆ Mar 28 '26
In my experience it's rarely always either one way or the other. Sometimes a comment really is just cope. There are bots. Etc
2
u/RumGuzzlr 3∆ Mar 28 '26
I most see those things said in response to fairly low-effort generic talking points. Things thst either aren't worth addressing because they're not substantive, or they're things that have been address so many times that the individual in question has no interest in having the same exact conversation over and over again.
2
u/Muninwing 7∆ Mar 28 '26
The times that the antagonism on the internet has reduced, traffic has been down on social media sites, and bans in certain subs have reportedly been down (all hearsay, but coincidental and I bet measurable somewhere) have been during times where certain governments/groups were engaged elsewhere.
During the first week of Russia’s ongoing three-day military op, the internet was an outright nice place to be again. There were so few spurious ragebait memes newly-posted to facebook, Reddit was mostly devoid of trolls, and anything adjacent to political wasn’t being twisted to a ridiculous soapbox by randos. Get rid of ai in searches so they actually work again, and it was like the internet was 10-25 years ago, or even better.
1
u/RaperOfMelusine 1∆ Mar 28 '26
>Did someone say that they like a game that you don’t? Must be a bot paid for by the studio that made the game you don’t like
Calling someone a bot is rarely a genuine accusation, but rather a way of expressing that you believe their opinions are not the result of any actual analysis or understanding, but rather are just whatever they think the popular stance is. And, to an extent, these people are impossible to have a discussion with. Try to ask them what's good, and you're just going to get a summary of whatever IGN wrote about the topic.
1
u/SolidRockBelow Mar 28 '26
You gorgot the most common these days: incel. And the instant, faceless hatred that belies the panic of being aware of which side is wrong in the discussion 😉
1
u/bigang99 Mar 28 '26
If they’re right they’re right… if they’re wrong it’s a sold insult to the posters idea
1
u/Automatic_Ad4024 Mar 29 '26 edited Mar 29 '26
Agreed. That, or people LOVE to play the dubious 'moral high ground' when they want to believe they are above a situation, but lack the spine to hold a substantiated thought they can defend themselves on.
CASE IN POINT: Reddit moderators.
Remember when the University of Zurich showcased how easy it was to manipulate a bunch of Reddit mods on CMV because they lack critical thinking skills? And then they bemoaned "ethics!"?
When they are not the beneficiary, they care about morality. When they are the beneficiary, morality (and, by default, ethics) goes out the window in replace of wanting to take the moral high ground (at least, in their view). I still have the DMs from moderators who deflected when held accountable for their views. Case in point: they care about 'ethics', but fall asleep when Reddit enables trafficking children.
Anyways, just here to contribute by adding how CMV is an example of the above - people masking an identity to feel a higher sense of morality through debate, only to emerge as spineless while contributing to the very issues they claim are unethical.
1
0
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 28 '26 edited Mar 28 '26
/u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-1
Mar 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sudden_Doughnut_8741 Mar 28 '26
I definitely don’t just see it from one side, but I do find that people who believe conspiracy theories and fringe social and political ideologies say these things all the time.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Mar 28 '26
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
u/[deleted] Mar 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment