I’m a conservative. I don’t mind the liberal stuff here. It’s good to learn the other side, but I don’t want a liberal echo chamber. I’d like to be more politically balanced in the fediverse. Is there any way I can do that?
Unfortunately most of the more “conservative” instances became highly toxic and so most other instances have defederated with them.
funny how every time conservatives group up, their communities become so toxic, full of hate and conspiracies, that people have no choice but to cut ties lol
Woah, woah, there… Telling all the trannies and colored folks to die is their protected free speech rights. How dare you cancel them.
they’d thrive on 4chan. i recommend OP go there. that’s a breeding ground for this ideology. they can enjoy all the loli, nazi, and “n***er” rekt gore threads they desire
I have to ask, what do lolis have to do with the rest? I can’t say I’m a fan but I feel like I’ve missed a memo.
4chan has a shiiiit ton of loli threads, sometimes containing real cp unfortunately, and some ai generated realistic cp. and, 4chan is a cesspool of alt right cunts. they are the ones proudly producing the threads
Just on /b/ for that.
/pol/ is the serious fascist breeding ground. I step in occasionally just to see what talking point these guys are going to be drumming in the mainstream in 3 to 6 months. It bleeds over everywhere else on 4chan so there’s a high overlap, but people on /b/ are surprisingly varied (if universally idiots, but I guess that’s kind of the point).
both are disgusting cesspits. i see no variation on /b/. its all loli, rekt, nazi threads, andy biersack, and porn
It’s because their political leader at the moment is a populist. They can’t help but be a bunch of cunts. Monkey see money do kind of thing.
Here’s an unpopular opinion. I saw a lot of the same elements in the Bernie crowd. Not for taking peoples rights or anything illegal like that mind you, but they were very quick to want to ignore the rules during the primary to throw out the choice of the Democratic majority in order to have Bernie win over Hillary. To this day I still hear conspiracy theory talking points about how Bernie really won, or how he was winning the real polls, etc. it’s the same populist rhetoric and it’s dangerous.
Yeah, but how often did Bernie himself repeat those conspiracy theories? Did he ever try to violently overturn the Democratic primary results? Every popular person has some shitty supporters, so you can’t just judge people based on their supporters.
Bernie never said anything to my knowledge, which is why I said the Bernie Crowd. It was limited to a chunk of his fan base that discussed ignoring primary results and awarding delegates to Bernie. Violent or Non-Violent wasn’t the point. The rules were set before the primary, and Bernie lost. Any attempt at discussion of anything regarding overturning that result is overturning democracy. That was scary to read. You don’t think that would ever turn into a coup attempt, but It’s enough to have made me uncomfortable.
I only blame Bernie as much as his populist rhetoric misleads people. Nothing actually happened, and I don’t believe he would have stood for it if it did.
Yeah, but how often did Bernie himself repeat those conspiracy theories? Did he ever try to violently overturn the Democratic primary results? Every popular person has some shitty supporters, so you can’t just judge people based on their supporters.
Have you seen all the comments on this thread?
Instead of answering the OPs question, 100+ people are just bashing him for thinking differently, saying stuff like “Well, why are you conservative in the first place? Conservatism is so stupid! People on the right are evil, monsters, etc.”
This left wing echo chamber is already very hateful and against any differing opinions.
It’s not “thinking differently” it’s “the beliefs necessary to maintain that political stance are stupid and cruel”.
Not every conservative is a racist nazi. Some of us just want the government to stick to doing what’s in the constitution.
So then how can you possibly agree with the right? Is banning books in the Constitution?
Westerners, especially Americans, have a really really hard time believing that you can be socially one thing and governmentally/economically another. For instance Im radically socially leftist but economically libertarian.
Because Americans have been force fed the lie that you have to pick one size fits all, they assume that every conservative is also socially conservative. Which, in the case of America, means you support the wild anti lgbt/anti abortion legislation.
I agree. The way I worded my comment was very intentional to not bash conservatism. I don’t consider myself one but I thought OP’s question was pretty respectful and I do find it unfortunate that he doesn’t have a community on here that isn’t extremely radicalized.
Yeah, it’s a shame that people can’t be more civil and respectful to each other.
Instantly became toxic? I’m shocked, shocked I say!
Unsurprisingly
I think they would be more moderate if more moderate people would have opportunity to participate. Right now all of the non left instances or communities get too quickly defederated and deleted, so moderate people who would normally participate dont want to create na account on a completely defederated instance. The only thing you are left of there are some crazies.
The only way I heard of conservative communities here is from a post that is asking for defederation or deletion
Well, the conservatives in those communities could try being less horrible pieces of shit and not bring hate to minority spaces, but that’s probably too much to ask
Remember when being conservative meant you wanted lower tax?
Now it’s a competition to see who’s going to say the most toxic stuff and who can become the biggest piece of trash a human being can be
“I LOVE RUSSIA TRUMP IS MY GOD FUCK LGBTS ALL TRANS ARE PEDOPHILE SOROS BILL GATES WOKE WOKE WOKE WOKE WOKE WOKE WOKE WOKE FAUCI OBAMA BUT HER EMAILS BUT HIS LAPTOPS BUD LITE WOKE WOKE”
like holy shit, calm down a bit…
Conservatism has always been that
In America maybe, although I doubt that.
That was like 15 years ago as I remember it. Being a conservative was about being a fiscal responsibility, and there was an expectation that we were all moving in the same direction socially. Now it’s all messed up.
It’s been the same since the Nixon era, they’re just more mask off about it now.
Give hate a chance!
conservative spaces shouldn’t need moderates to balance out their toxicity and crazy when left on their own, they simply shouldn’t be toxic and crazy. why do they need their hand held? it gets defederated quickly because THEY always quickly turn their spaces into pure hate, and they choose to spread that. that’s on them, not us.
The ideology is built in hate so it’s no surprise this happens to them
It’s funny. What is happening here is “hate” towards conservatives!
And no, conservatism is not built upon hate. There has to be a left, there has to be a right. And the absence of either would drive us to dictatorship (lack of left wing) or anarchy (lack of right wing)
Oh no, anarchy
… Uh so no dominance hierarchies, where no one rules over another? Yeah, don’t threaten me with a good time
I’m socially pretty left but a voluntarist and it feels pretty hostile. Even socially moderate or liberal cons will feel pretty bad. I’m just used to chillin’ in left spaces so it’s whatever.
I get what you’re saying. There’s a mindset in the fediverse that everyone on an instance is responsible for it. Even if the bad actors join later. The instance gets defederated but as a user it can be really hard to know if your instance is defederated.
It’s a deeply unpopular opinion and anyone who suggests that federation is simultaneously a huge advance and a big problem seems to get downvoted.
You’re right, ultimately instead of being exposed to a range of views some of which are challenging we’ll end up in little echo chambers.
We need more moderation and less defederation.
There’s a difference between being exposed to a range of views and being exposed to hatred.
And that’s were moderation (the act of moderation) comes in as a first step rather than instant defederation.
r/conservative mods handed out bans for anyone even asking a legit question. Conservative arguments aren’t fact based, so any good faith argument is seen as an attack and the only defense is to reject it outright. I don’t know how good moderation can be applied to that.
deleted by creator
I’m fine being in an echo chamber that Trans people deserve human rights. That’s a hill I’m willing to die on. If you disagree, you can stay out of my bubble, I’m not negotiating this point.
This. If they identify as humans, they deserve human rights
I haven’t mentioned anything about Trans people at all ? There’s nothing to negotiate and I don’t disagree that trans people have a right to be treated with respect and have their rights respected.
It’s the hot topic of the moment for conservatives, particularly the ones that are getting banned from public sites. Other than that, it’s all culture war shit like abortion, immigration, border walls, etc that all go into xenophobia, misogamy, racism, antisemitism etc. I haven’t seen any real conservative ideas in a decade. Now it’s all a grift. You either have a old idea of what conservative is or just aren’t saying it out loud. Even when Republicans cut taxes, they cut them massively for the rich and give the middle class and poor pennies. Any time someone wants to put more money in lower classes pockets they fabricate some bullshit to block it (Student Loan Forgiveness, Stimulus Checks) all a while giving Businesses Billions and removing oversight (PPP Loans).
The challenge will be finding an actual traditional conservative instance that isn’t also a pro-Nazi fascist shithole.
I imagine traditional conservatives often get gate checked as leftist.
Been called a Nazi plenty of times on Reddit and now here. God forbid you believe capitalism with a touch of regulation when needed works 🤷♂️.
Not to get too sidetracked but part of what isn’t working about capitalism is what is coming down the pipe with climate change. Capitalism does work, but market socialism looks like an upgrade to me. People over profits.
That’s fine. I’m just saying it doesn’t make me racist Nazi to have a more right position.
Maybe not, but the consequences of your beliefs impact people negatively and you should accept the resulting disapproval.
No, but you are still voting to support all those other things when you vote republican
DOUBT
You’ve said other things to get people to call you that.
Well if any left winger were to argue that merely believing capitalism with a touch of regulation works is all that makes you a Nazi, I’d be inclined to disagree with them even as a liberal progressive.
For me it’s believing that what you read, what you are taught, who you love/marry, how you practice art, what happens between you and a doctor, and where you were born that needs to be policed, controlled, and punished is what makes a Nazi. I honestly don’t think a genuine American conservative would care about any of that.
I think you are referring to democratic socialism.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nope, it started much earlier. When they linked up with evangelical Christians.
Yeah there’s only as much sane conservative content as there are sane conservatives.
/r/conservative used to be moderately sane back before 2015. It’s almost like the entire Republican lost their minds the year after that. I wonder why…
Would it be too late for them to rein it back now?
Seems like anyone trying would be immediately be booted for being a “liberal”, and the only way is down.
deleted by creator
holy shit, the jokes write themselves. it really is like 3 losers posting weird ass shit
“If A Leftist Guy Was With His Girlfriend And Called You A Toxic Male, What Would You Do?”
“I downvote every post that says 'climate change”The f***? What the hell is that racist garbage?
Also a bunch of transphobic shit, because of course.
aaaand another, i could go on
and another
Reality has a well known liberal bias. Stop trying to hide from reality.
No, the Internet as a whole has more liberals than conservatives, due to a variety of reason. In real life you are much more likely to met someone that is neutral or only slightly to either side. What exists here is literal echo chambers of liberal policy to the point the policy becomes unpalatable for most, that doesn’t exist outside the internet.
that doesn’t exist outside the internet.
Never been to any type of city, I see.
As a rural person, I’ve come to realize that we usually have no real concept of just how overwhelmingly large the population is that lives in huge cities.
It’s easy to perceive New York as just “a lot bigger than any town I’ve lived in” rather than “large enough that my entire town could visit on the same day and literally no one would notice”.
Another one that helps me put it in perspective - “If every resident of New York took a day trip to casually slap one member of my town one time, everyone in my town would probably die of our injuries.” It helps me when meditating on “Why should they wield so much political power?” They already do. This shared voting system just let’s us argue in a much chiller way.
A lot of history makes more sense through the context of realizing both how different city and town life is, while also accepting that an almost inconceivable number of people live in cities.
the Internet as a whole has more liberals than conservatives
Because Conservatives don’t know how to use the internet or change the channel away from fox
I don’t like fox or cnn. They’re both corrupt. I prefer to get my news through youtube. I search for experts on a certain topic explaining the issue. During covid I watched a lot of doctors explaining covid on YouTube.
YouTube is not a news source my friend. A lot of the “experts” you’ll find on there have zero credibility.
Saying “I get news from YouTube” is like saying “I get news from the television”. It matters what channel you’re on.
What direction do you think fox is biased towards? What direction do you think cnn is biased towards?
It’s worse than getting news from TV. TV doesn’t have an algorithm feeding you Right wing propaganda like YouTube pushes.
No. The Internet just seems more liberally slanted because people are more liberally slanted overall. Conservatives rely on outdated voting principles to make it seem like they are more widely supported than they actually are. Things like first past the post, electoral college and gerrymandering. This is why you see republicans fighting to either keep the voting process the way it is, or to restrict voting in various ways.
Also, conservatives feel like the Internet is more slanted to the left because they are usually stuck in their little rural community echo chamber. Then come to the internet where they actually have to interact with people outside their local area, like cities and other countries.
They also rely on the low voter turnout. If more people under 40 voted, it would likely be consistent liberal governance for the foreseeable future.
that doesn’t exist outside the internet.
It sure exists in the podcasts I listen to (real people talking, even if it gets delivered via internet) and books that I read. It exists in the conversations that I have with my social group irl. It existed like crazy at the Bernie campaign speech that I attended in Feb 2020. If you think Leftist / Social Democrats don’t have real numbers, it’s because you don’t look for those groups to surround you.
It’s not even the internet. Conservatives are more likely to stick to existing stuff and not experiment much. Liberals do that.
This is why places like YouTube have a big conservative audience. Places like Lemmy will have a huge liberal audience
I know it’s scary to be in the real world outside of your conservative silo, but as you’re seeing the lies your News agencies have been feeding you simply aren’t true.
The Red states flipping blue, Texas going purple and the vast majority of Americans being in favor of roe v wade show that your world view of conservatism is not the majority belief in America.
deleted by creator
I find it very weird how certain specific issues are assigned to a certain political leaning or more correct correct, how you are expected to believe a certain way in all topics depending on your voting history.
A couple examples are religion and abortion. What do these have to do with any political leaning in the US or any country for that matter? Our maybe the better question to ask is why do people think there is some universal law that dictates what side of the political spectrum you lie on based on certain beliefs that have nothing to do with politics?
That’s the point. This liberal vs conservative isn’t even working for the US. In an international community like Lemmy it’s even worse, as what people from the US define as left and right does not work for western Europe for example. In Germany liberal in a modern sense is seen equal to neoliberal, what is democrats for US is right conservative for us, what is left in Europe is communism for the US and so on, you get it.
It may work for parties on a regional level, but for individuals, forget it.
The connection between conservatism and religion/abortion exists because of a well documented effort by Reagan era republicans to culturally connect them. Imo there is no underlying rationale besides “we will create and maintain moral wedge issues to keep religious voters on the hook”, while they work on their true goals- the consolidation of wealth and power further into the oligarchy.
Exactly what I am saying. Religion was never a left or right thing. That is not even the definition of left or right politics. For some reason it for attached to one but that is a human construct and a US construct. Most other countries don’t portray religion to a certain political leaning.
How can you be so obtuse?
The Republican Party is forcing their religious beliefs on everyone (abortion, gay rights, etc) on everyone, claiming the US is a Christian nation.
Don’t be an ass. Not that it bugs me when you get personal but Lemmy is more caustic than Reddit if you want people to think a bit.
This is so important. In essence, politics should be about our view, and critically searching for those who best represent it (or the most important part of it at the current moment), not about a ‘team we root for’ and get our views from. I think too many people forget that.
Just a reminder that it isn’t a left vs right conversation. It’s working class vs ruling class.
You aren’t bitter at leftists, you’re bitter at the ideas that media companies use to keep you angry at leftists instead of oligarchs.
If you have to work, you’re working class.
If you actually do hate certain types of people, then you need to work on yourself.
If you don’t believe certain people need health care, then you need to work on yourself.
If you believe ultra wealthy (people making over $10mil in income annually) deserve more tax cuts, then you need to work on yourself.
If you don’t believe that minimum wage should have parity with inflation, then you need to work on yourself.
Have some class solidarity.
EDIT: To all those downvotes… Ask yourself why you are downvoting me. (Now with 100% more sources)
Do you actually hate certain people? Really? But you’re downvoting me? Work on yourself.
Do you actually believe you don’t deserve health care? That others don’t deserve health care? Seriously? Work on yourself.
Are you super wealthy (low percentage chance)? I’m saying uncomfortable things to you. But you can easily afford those taxes so maybe work on yourself.
Do you believe people working for minimum wage shouldn’t be able to afford an apartment by themselves anywhere in the USA? Work on yourself.
deleted by creator
Well said. I’m saving this.
I think it’ll be tough to find that corner of it… I think I saw a conservative community on lemmy.world but the platforms original purpose was to get away from the big, controlling, capitalist social media platforms the likes of Twitter, Instagram, reddit, etc. Like mastodon, the largest part of the fediverse (I’m pretty sure), grew alot when twitter was brought by Elon, and more moved after he messed up the platform enough, saying they’ll create their own platform where hate won’t be allowed. It’s kinda against it’s nature to have much conservative-ness.
Not trying to be rude as based on how this sounds, you seem nice enough and not crazy, but places like mastodon are basically the left’s version of “Truth social” where people are pretty ok with saying “I don’t want those thoughts spread here” those thoughts they don’t want are usually things like homophobia or transphobia, but those are fairly common on the right even if you don’t share them.
It’s an interesting thought and would probably be alittle healthier, but hey you’re still here being able to provide that counter point of view
Anyone who votes for a party that supports racism, banning books, and trying to make it harder for people to vote is not “nice enough”.
They are an evil piece of shit who is making the country a miserable place to live.
I agree with this but we aren’t talking about castings votes here and I’m assuming OP is voting as if he is a sane person, but what are they supposed to do with the values they hold that don’t align with liberalism?
I would decide which is worse: the things I listed, or the things the voter may dislike about liberal policies like free healthcare for all.
but what are they supposed to do with the values they hold that don’t align with liberalism?
Grow as a person. Something we should all strive to do. There are plenty of places I diverged from all the hard right liberals. Mostly around the capitalism fetish. But I can support them at least because of their more pro social democracy stance. But I can articulate and explain the logic why when asked. As a socialist I also diverge heavily from anti social democracy socialists. And again, can general explain and point out the reasons why. Things most of my fellow Americans have little understanding of or desire too. But none of us are perfect, nor will we ever be. But that isn’t a reason to stop growing.
I only vote republican when they have good views. I’d rather get rid of political parties and make people run on merit alone.
What was the last decade where that happened?
If you have only two choices and both are bad, you have to choose the lesser evil. The OP probably doesn’t like the racism and stuff, but they dislike certain policies of the other party even more.
Also, “trying to make it harder for people to vote” is an interesting way to say “requiring people to bring their citizen ID when voting, like in any civilized country”.
I would say that the dismantling of human rights would be a greater evil than the things the democrats could cook up, but if you are not affected and have no empathy for others it could be better to vote for the republicans.
And werent the conditions to be able to vote pretty restrictive to a lot of people?
I live in a country where identification is required for voting and it doesn’t feel restrictive. On the contrary, I’m glad someone can’t just vote in my name.
In the US the largest group of people without id’s are Democrats and black.
It’s literally making the system more racist.
Every black person has an ID, you have to otherwise you can’t do anything anyways. I have never met anyone in my community who doesn’t have some form of ID that’s valid in elections.
So the question is, why doesn’t everyone have IDs? How does the country identify its citizens?
IDs cost money, require visits to DMVs (which conservatives work hard to shut down in poor areas, or other fuckery with their hours or such), and if you want the federal level one cost more and require more paperwork
We use the garbage and not-designed-for-this social security number for major IDing
Because the republicans work very hard to make it difficult for people who would likely vote democrat.
If you got an ID sent to you when you turned $AGE I’d support requiring it to vote. But any proposal of free/automatic IDs gets shouted down by fanatics who think it’s the mark of the beast from Revelations. It’s a non-starter.
In my country:
- We have a mandatory national ID
- Having it automatically registers you as a voter after 16 y.o.
- Voting is mandatory between 18 and 70.
- We vote on Sundays to ensure everyone can go.
- Voting in always in person. We usually use schools to that end, windows are obscured to ensure secrecy.
- We record who voted following the electoral registry. Only the last issued national ID is valid to vote.
Where is this Shangri-la?
Not such: we’re in Latin America and we have a multitude of other problems.
deleted by creator
I’m thinking specifically of gerrymandering but this article covers the many voter disenfranchisement methods used by Republicans in the US in the past decades:
There’s far more to making voting more difficult than just requiring an ID. For example, I believe it was Texas that relatively recently lowered its number of voting stations in left-leaning areas and made it illegal to give people water that were waiting in line to vote.
You can be someone that’s not inherently against capitalism and for free communications platforms. I think stuff like this is a good start for polycentric regulation, which I see as important for any type of a voluntary or anarchist future.
deleted by creator
I’m sure prager would fund it if someone explained it to him
Removed by mod
I think that’s a very objective view of the landscape here. I hope it comes across as inviting as it is informative, to me at least.
To add, I think people here are a little less reactionary than on platforms like reddit. At least for the time being. I certainly want the whole of the civil society represented here including conservatives. Dialog will get us out of the divisive place we’ve come to. We share a lot more than we differ.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that “conservative” in the context of US politics has been bifurcated. On the one hand, there are definitely traditional conservatives out there. On the other hand, the really loud ones tend to be far right edge lords who purposefully speak loudly about topics that are socially unacceptable. It’s always based on a misunderstanding of free speech, too: people are generally free to say what they want, but they are not free from the consequences imposed by society based on what they say, especially when supporting harmful activities or straight violence. This is something Elon Musk really should learn about.
I’m all for open discourse with traditional conservatives, but I’m not about to sit idly by while Nazis return to the stage. There was a war and the outcome was pretty darned clear. So, I’d say it’s a good example of bad apples ruining the bunch (though from what I have seen, the
numberratio of Nazis vs traditional conservatives is sadly pretty high). I think it is an issue that will need to be fixed between conservatives, ultimately. Shutting down Nazis (again) seems quite acceptable to me, however.the number of Nazis vs traditional conservatives is sadly pretty high
I think you mean ratio, not number.
Yes, and just edited. Thanks.
I understand how you feel, let me know if you find anything. I’m more left leaning myself, but I’m also not a fan of echo chambers and it gets pretty tiring and annoying seeing the same stuff over and over again. At the end of the day, I just wanna see an open, fair, and balanced discussion. The Fediverse is undeniably very left leaning currently, which is surprising to me since you’d think the anti-censorship design on paper would appeal more to people on the right who are against big tech and censorship, but I guess not? It’s interesting.
The Fediverse is undeniably very left leaning currently, which is surprising to me since you’d think the anti-censorship design on paper would appeal more to people on the right who are against big tech and censorship, but I guess not? It’s interesting.
american conservatives care more about denying rights and liberties than anything else as evidenced by their leaders and publicly shared platforms; so if you believe that censorship has anything to do w it, you’re not a conservative.
I think both the left and the right are concerned with restricting rights, they just have different views of which rights it’s okay to obstruct.
Which rights to leftists want to “obstruct”?
They never come back to answer that question do they?
I personally would like to further obstruct the freedom to murder children at school.
I second that
Personally I want to obstruct the right to murder schoolchildren that seems to have become prevalent but the rightwingers seem to think that’s an infringement.
The “rights” to deny bodily autonomy and to enact ethnical cleansing are not worth defending.
Ah yes, the classic conservative “both sides” argument.
I mean honestly it’s probably near impossible to discuss conservative politics online these days without the far right loonies invading, taking over and getting the place banned lol.
Also I wonder if conservatives would be put off lemmy given the political stance of its creators - even though that shouldn’t matter being free and open and not controlled by any one person, you know how people are.
Why do you thknk it is, that those “far right loonies” feel welcome and comfortable in those “conservative” spaces?
I mean, while that could be correct I also consider that if far right spaces get banned regularly then those people are refugees that will invade the next closest thing?
Obviously the next closest thing to far right, is center right. Does that make the center right inherently bad? I don’t think so necessarily on principle.
I disagree with conservative views almost entirely but its not something that I believe shouldn’t have discussion spaces, unlike far right politics which can just get fucked with their disdain for basic human rights, they don’t deserve a seat at the table at all.
I suppose ultimately it’s down to moderation isn’t it. If conservatives want a seat at the table they have to keep their lunatics in check and if they don’t then yeah don’t see why I should cry over it really, and thats true of all online communities.
Center-right just fits in with everyone else. Either all those people have shut up and just blend in with liberals or they don’t really exist.
I know, so weird right
If someone is “conservative” but not a Trump loving Q nut job, I’d argue that they have about the same in common with the Biden administration than many progressives online do. There is no overlap with the majority republicans party today. The concept of discussion is not compatible.
I mean there are also other countries in the world with various varieties of conservatives but I see your point
The conservatives in many other first world nation would fit better with the democrats in the US at the center. The US Republican party is lost. These people do pop up in other countries though, Canada especially.
This is my issue as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with conservative politics, but most arguments I see about politics online are about highly charged topics instead of actual policy discussion. Lots of heated emotions from people whose easiest outlet is anger doesn’t make for good conversations.
It often feels like we represent media interests and are arguing on behalf of whatever source we spend the most time immersed in.
What US conservative platform bullet isn’t a grift? Is there any? It’s been nearly a decade since I came across a conservative arguing anything in good faith.
Also I wonder if conservatives would be put off lemmy given the political stance of its creators - even though that shouldn’t matter being free and open and not controlled by any one person, you know how people are.
I’ve already seen it happening with people on Reddit (they don’t seem particularly conservative either) claiming that lemmy is “built and run by Tankies”. Many of these people though are/were also scabs so take that as you will.
deleted by creator
Meanwhile, libertarians are staring at both the extreme left and extreme right and wondering what the fundamental difference is…
Indeed, libertarians are known to be stupid.
The Fediverse is undeniably very left leaning currently, which is surprising to me since you’d think the anti-censorship design on paper would appeal more to people on the right who are against big tech and censorship, but I guess not? It’s interesting.
What a baffling take. I’m stunned that you managed to describe the exact opposite of reality. The left are against centralisation of power, especially in corporations… It’s so absurd to suggest the left are fans of big tech. It’s even more absurd to suggest the right are not. The right wing supports capitalism, and corporate monopoly is pretty much the goal of any capitalist business.
Also, censorship is utterly irrelevant to this discussion… apart from, i guess, social media execs having the power to silence people who hate them. Which are… most likely to be leftists…
Such a weird comment. I’m shook.
deleted by creator
Yes, claim
Being a conservative must be a discombobulating experience in the technological age. The conservative is attempting to prevent the progression of society and conserve what we currently have or even revert to a bygone era.
OP arrives at a brand new platform, a piece of technology that didn’t exist a short while ago and requests a space to assemble people who don’t like change.
Do you think that progress is a straight line?
I’d like to be more politically balanced in the fediverse.
As shown by votes on abortion rights in states like Kansas, Michigan, etc, your views are in the minority. Media makes it seem like the country is split 50-50, but the only reason that appearance isn’t turned on its head is low voter turnout.
I do hope you find a place where you feel comfortable, however. I think that’s reasonable to strive for for all people regardless of their views.
Nah, man. If your views involve forcing the birth of a baby with spina-bifida or my wife carrying a dead fetus for three months or more, you can get fucked.
Also gerrymandering
Why make it a right vs left thing at all. Can’t we just discuss things going on as they are without pigeonholing certain opinions as “right” and “left?”
I don’t think x y z thing is true because I’m “on the left.” I think it’s true because it’s my best understanding of reality, and that understanding of reality is generally described as “left.” If you falsify my arguments, point flaws in my understanding, or present me with a set of premises that corroborates reality better, I’ll align myself with that in a heartbeat. When you see something you disagree with, don’t just think “oh that’s leftism I don’t agree with that,” instead, try to figure out what you think the flaw is with it, and then offer that up in good faith. Worst case scenario, someone learns something.
I can appreciate opposing views, including conservative ones, if they are grounded in reason. In fact I welcome them … they sharpen my own arguments and make me question my beliefs which is seldom a bad thing.
What I cannot accept is any argument based on a supernatural entity. If you want to make laws because your holy book tells you to then I’ll do everything in my power to block you. You have the absolute right to follow your own beliefs but you have no right to force those beliefs on others.
You have a point there. I agree with a lot of views from the left even though I’m on the right.
First off, thank you :)
Second off, I am having a hard time understanding what the statement “I agree with a lot of views from the left even though I’m on the right” means. What do you consider “views from the left” that you agree with, and what does it mean to you to say you’re “on the right?”
I know people here will try to debate me on every issue here and I know I won’t have time for that. Go ahead and ask whatever questions you want, but I can’t promise I’ll answer everything. .
I don’t have a perfect knowledge of exactly what’s on the left and right so please forgive me if I put something in the wrong category.
I understand that left vs right ideally shouldn’t exist. The same goes for political parties. They do exist so here’s some of my views from both sides.
Right. I don’t agree with critical race theory. Skin color should be treated like hair color or eye color. It’s just a way to describe someone.
Government should strictly obey the constitution.
Billionaires should exist if they do businesses ethically.
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the fetus.
I find myself agreeing more with conservatives when voting.
The electoral college is a good thing because it lets small towns have a voice.
Left. Walkable cities are a more efficient use of space.
Climate change is real and humans are continuing. It’s not going to destroy the world in 5 years like some people are saying. It’s mostly going to affect poor costal countries and islands many years in the future.
Corporations should be held accountable for their actions.
Puerto Rico and other US territories should be a states or their own country.
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the mother.
Ultimately if people want to debate you, you’re not obligated to indulge them. It’s good for discourse to put out your opinion in the way that you have (eg respectfully and without throwing barbs at everyone).
That said, some of your points are hard for me to follow.
I don’t have a perfect knowledge of exactly what’s on the left and right so please forgive me if I put something in the wrong category.
If you can’t articulate the difference, how is it that you came to identify as one? IMO “left vs right” is an intentionally vague and poorly defined concept to keep people angry and identifying with a brand, more than a coherent description of ideology.
I understand that left vs right ideally shouldn’t exist. The same goes for political parties. They do exist so here’s some of my views from both sides.
I don’t agree with critical race theory…
I hear so much about this. What does it mean? Can you give a real world example where someone is trying to implement what you oppose?
I don’t remember off the top of my head exactly what CRT is, but I remember this video was a really good explanation.
Edit: I also can’t tell you exactly where it’s being taught in the real world. It’s not a topic I’ve done thorough research in.
CRT is something that is widely mischarcterized, especially in politics. It is principally an academic topic in sociology and law.
In the simplest form, it looks at how historical treatment of groups based upon their race/ethnic background can have an impact on their descendents and how that can also impact society.
For example, due to enslavement of their ancestors, a larger proportion of African Americans are impoverished than those of European descent. This has further impacts on how they are perceived in society and vice-versa.
That’s literally the sort of thing that it is. Not assigning value to skin color but looking at how society historically has and its impacts.
The reason I asked was because I think there’s a fundamental disagreement between what it actually is that people disagree about.
Your earlier post suggests that your stance on abortion is different than that of the mainstream conservative narrative. This seems normal, based on how every vote on that issue seems to be playing out, there is a disconnect between the ideology that conservative leaders are pushing and what their supporters actually think. The exact same situation is true with affirmation action on the left - voters consistently reject it regardless of party affiliation or self identified political leaning.
I’d hear people identify CRT as being closely related to affirmative action, in that it’s an actual policy that gives out some advantage (or seeks to remove some other existing advantage, if you have a different perspective) vs being some purely academic case study more like what a other response to your response described.
Where I’m going with this is that depending on what you’re describing when you say CRT, it’s very easily possible that your position of opposing it is consistent with a clear majority of people who identify as “left”. The disagreement isn’t about ideology, but about semantics that is being exploited by a political class to drive support.
You seem like a reasonable guy, so I’ll try to explain why I heavily disagree with some of these.
-
Billionaires should exist
I get the whole “they earned their money fairly” argument, but I can never justify morally the act of having more money than you, your children and grandchildren can ever know how to spend. Try to visualize a bit how much a billion is, it’s a disgusting amount of money for a single person when you can spend them to help others in a meaningful way, like investing in healthcare to make it accessible for example.
-
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the fetus
Think of the common situations where people use abortion. It’s usually young people who are not in a position to raise a child, people who are a bad couple or not even a couple to begin with, that aren’t suitable to raise a child together, poor people that can’t afford to raise a child properly, and cases where the fetus has a life altering problem.
In all of these cases, you are prioritizing a fetus over the whole life of a person who will grow up much much worse than an average child.
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the mother
Isn’t this a conflicting view with the other one? Which one should you prioritize if the mother is too young to bear a child, the mother who is a grown person with memories, hopes and dreams, a personality, a family etc., or the fetus which doesn’t really perceive anything that’s going on at the moment?
-
Climate change is only going to affect coastal areas in a lot of years
Have you not seen what’s going on all around the world? Fires everywhere, whirlwinds, floods, all more common than they have ever been. And are you willing to bet that it’s not going to become even worse as it goes on? Because I’m willing to bet that if we don’t fix it very very soon, then climate migrations, wars and famine might even be close enough for us or our children to experience.
-
Skin color should be treated like hair color or eye color. It’s just a way to describe someone.
Is there a history of descriminating and enslaving people based on their hair or eye color? You don’t think that that history has any effect on society?
I find myself agreeing more with conservatives when voting.
Like what? Because you’re likely just agreeing with what they say, because they’re lying, and you’re believing them. Not because of any inherent truth to what they say. It’s one thing to agree with someone on something they say. But do you agree with what they DO? Give an example of a price of legislation that the Republicans have pushed that the Democrats opposed that you agree with
And why do you think the Democrats don’t think the government should follow the Constitution. Which party is enacting laws explicitly bypassing constituonal rights by allowing citizens to sue privately, rather than enforcing it themselves, explicitly to get around constitutional issues. Which party is banning books, firing teachers for protected speech, etc
All of your right leaning opinions listed are not opinions at all - they are Republican talking points, written and promoted by Republicans whose life experience (abortion for example) often flies in the face of these statements.
How you think they fit with the rest of your statements is beyond me. Do you just drool and nod at Fox News?
With all due respect, you’re very condescending and snobby. You act like you know his beliefs better than he does, that superiority complex looks ugly on you.
You think insulting people for having certain views is going to be helpful in this dialogue? You think mocking someone who’s having a conversation with you in good faith is productive?
Grow up, quit being so smug and childish.
I don’t watch fox news.
Yet you somehow know all of their talking points and made up fantasy situations. So if you’re not getting your news from fox, whoever you are getting it from is getting it from fox, like Facebook.
You’ve made that pretty clear by going off on “critical race theory”. Tell us how you know about that, and where you got your definition for it from?
I can’t speak for the the person you replied to but I get my information from a variety of sources. One is the Economist magazine, (hardly a right wing tabloid). In a recent op-ed John McWhorter, who is a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, and the author of more than a dozen books, and who also happens to be black, Mr McWhorter laments that CRT has “painted black Americans as hypersensitive children, immune to reason and indifferent to nuance”. He goes on to say that “Whites insist this is progress in order to feel unracist. Black people (although hardly in the lockstep many suppose) insist this is progress because it lends them a useful “noble victim” status. The result is a chronic, pervasive mendacity, dehumanising black people as thoroughly as outright bigotry did, despite being presented as respect and even worship.”.
You may disagree with Mr McWhorter. I certainly do. But for you to so casually dismiss another person as an gnorant, fox news dummy simply because they have different views tells us more about you than about them.
Hey I understand the frustration, but the person you’re replying too seems to me to be offering up their understanding of things in good faith, and if your goal is to maje the world better—good faith discussion is going to go a lot further in that.
Although if your goal is just to feel good dunking on that person, then I suppose this comment serves that goal, but I want to believe you do actually care about trying to make things better.
Define “conservative”
deleted by creator
Oh, and don’t forget about social safety nets that are part of the status quo but which they also don’t care about.
And social freedoms. Because fuck other’s freedoms.
Also no human or personal rights. Everyone should be a slave except for the rich. And fuck your vacations.
And not really conserving status quo either but actively trying to make it shittier.
What I’d like it to mean - the belief that government intervention often hurts the people that it’s meant to help, so should only be used in limited circumstances and be carefully designed.
It seems to mean white supremacy, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia instead.
The idea that government intervention is bad puzzles me every time I encounter it. Government in a democracy should be “the people” and intervention could protect you in so many cases. Assuming you’re from the US, from an outside perspective your job ‘market’ is utterly fucked. Because of cuts to the welfare system (which have been marketed with somewhat racist propaganda, see welfare queens), most people are forced to take highly unregulated, low-paying jobs (yes, plural) while rich people and big companies earn more and more. The government could intervene and make it harder for companies to exploit workers the way they’re doing it right now.
Look at how it was 60 years ago. Single income, blue collar households could afford houses. Now double income academic households can’t. And all that despite the huge technological progress we made. We need so much less manual labor than in the 1960s. Everything should be easier. For everyone.
That is because denying welfare to people who need it happens to line up perfectly with the beliefs of those groups you named. Neoliberalism didn’t work out for the people, only people still voting for this shit are bigots and gullible morons.
That definition doesn’t seem to fit the verb conserve or adjective conserving. If it’s specifically about government, wouldn’t it be better to use a term for that instead of the very broad conservative? Slim Government?
In terms of economics, liberal and conservative used to mean regarding the role of government. They’ve taken the opposite meanings in American political discourse.
Even the first part of your comment is some fairy tale rich people tell you so they can make more profit.
I think they’re often wrong, but I’ve known a lot of people who aren’t rich and believe it in good faith.
Of course they believe it. Rich people get idolized like crazy and rich people are constantly saying that programs that benefit the average citizen are bad and are too expensive for the tax payers.
Conservatives spent two generations actively trying to make the government worse and less effective just so they can turn around and say “look how shitty this is!”
