One of the easiest relatable discussions regarding narratives which have gained speed through false allegations is the Michael Brown case from 2014. Forensic and ballistic evidence has proven with a great deal of facts that Brown was in fact shot while charging Wilson shortly after attempting to grab Wilson's gun. Discharge from a firearm was found on Browns' right hand along with a bullet would to the thumb and forearm. In order for there to be discharge, Brown would have had to been no more than seven feet away from the firearm. The final proof of evidence would be that exit wounds in Michael Brown were consistent with Wilson's testimony, since the exit wounds were located on Brown's back, meaning he did charge Wilson. With all of this evidence to disprove what was a commonly known chant by the Black Lives Matter movement as "Hands up. Don't shoot", the left continued with this narrative. Although facts proved otherwise, many still went by this narrative because they liked it. The whole notion of cops targeting and killing blacks continues today because of such falsehoods. A basic look at crime statistics would show that blacks commit crime at a much higher rate than whites, which would mean more are incarcerated. A good example of this would be suggesting that a cop is racist because he shoots 5 men. Four black men and one white man were involved in a robbery. All of them committed a crime, except the majority of the perpetrators were black. The cop is not racist in his actions just because the majority of the people he shot were black. All were committing a crime and all received a fair punishment. Although this is not a fair analogy, it shows what those on the left assume when looking at crime statistics and who's committing them.

But even then, we are still cursed with this narrative. Whenever a cop shooting is reported by the media, race is always anyone's first knee jerk reaction rather than looking at what actually happened. This has plagued both sides of the political spectrum. Trump supporters are just as to blame for this. As a proud conservative, I feel that hypocrisy runs the game we call politics, and I personally try not to fall into such an easy trap.

Another recent topic of discussion that follows the same lines as the Michael Brown case is the whole "Muslim ban" movement. When Trump had put into place his travel ban from seven countries selected by former president Obama, the Democrats raced forward with their usual agenda. They called it a policy of racism and islamophobia, but one fact that seems to completely escape them is the fact that there is this thing called a moratorium. It is a legally binding term referring to policy relating to immigration policy. There have been many efforts by Congress in the last 100 years to bar immigration. Terms like "un-American", "Muslim ban", "unconstitutional" have no factual basis regarding President Trump's moratorium. Even so, the ban may prove to be ineffective, in which case Conservatives should realize this and not continue to support the narrative of the action, which would be the increase of foreign national security.

The main takeaway from this article should be to always keep an open mind about politically held ideas. Understand how it would look if someone from the other side of the argument debated their line of thinking the same way you did. The aspects that should separate the two should be facts that are indisputable. Now, it's been well known that facts themselves can be interpreted differently, and that's how we come up with politically charged ideas.