It's not even about the liberalism. Every discussion there tends to be people giving their opinions in the form of hot takes, speaking confidently (and often in memespeak) when making statements that deserve to be backed up by sources. They have this way of talking that really lends itself to confirmation bias because each side of a conversation makes inflammatory claims that may sound conclusive, so whichever side the majority agrees with (on the basis of sounding nuanced and correct) gets anointed. Case in point: https://hexbear.net/post/4476685

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's frequently how it goes on Hexbear, too, except usually leaning toward what rhetorically sounds righteous rather than nuanced.

[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 7 points 3 days ago

I think most of our struggle sessions have been on topics where both sides agreed on the facts but disagreed on the prescriptions to be derived from those facts, or on something more aesthetic/symbolic. In those cases it's really not like one can make arguments that are backed up by much evidence, except maybe trying to gather a lot of people's opinions so one can say "most people are okay with this" or the opposite.

On that subreddit, people often get away with making factually incorrect claims because of the nuance fetish. See the thread I linked where the entire motivation of Operation Prosperity Guardian is glossed over and dismissed in the name of finding a reason why Things Are Complicated:tm: