Exactly. The whole "everything the other side does is evil while my side can do no wrong btw" isn't helpful or going to lead to any change at all. Worse, these attempts to "control the conversation" would (if paid attention to) actually lead to increasing those evil deeds, bc leopards always eat people's faces off aka reveale their true spots... eventually. e.g. blaming liberals for genocide will only lead to Republicans winning who have actively and outright stated that they will do even more genocide, plus far more than that besides.

And I don't blame normies - who wants to join a place that features such "alternative facts" and "alternative logic" on a daily basis? Yes you can go to some trouble to opt-out, but not easily, and they don't know how, or even that it's possible to do so.

None of the west's enemies are afforded the same generosity. Maybe we don't want the majority of guests to be a bunch of mindless parrots who only care about human rights when mainstream media from "their side" tell them to care (as an excuse to project power globally). It ends up permeating all discussions, even ones that aren't directly about politics and you end up building an echo chamber. It shapes how you see the world, for example, you took a post talking specifically about western leadership to be about "convicting all of western civilization" as if the victim of the genocide is actually the west.

I'm curious, where exactly do you draw the line with your reasoning? You can denounce dumping oil into the ocean without convicting all of Shell? You can denounce the invasion of Crimea without convicting all of the Russian military? You can denounce murder without convicting all murders? Why not skip this alltogether and denounce all bad things without convicting all good things, that makes the game of ethics a whole lot easier.

"western civilization" is not a majority. It's a minority who has been dominating the discussion for way too long, and people are tired of listening to the hypocrisy.