I don’t have much of a problem either way as I don’t think I’ll be engaging in political discussion on this website past this post but it seems like any sort of non-left wing opinions or posts are immediately trashed on here. That’s fine. There’s clearly a more liberal audience here and that’s okay. I just don’t want Lemmy to become a echo chamber for any side and it seems to be that way when it comes to politics already.
Mostly making this post just to drum up discussion as I’m new here.
Edit: Thanks for the rational replies. I was expecting to get lit up for even mentioning this topic lol.
If your “conservative / right wing opinion” is that austerity measures are a good thing, then the most generous interpretation of that is that you’re just a moron. As it turns out, though, today’s “conservative / right wing opinions” are way worse than that. Things like “trans people aren’t people”. Or “we should do a treason”. Or “bribing supreme court justices is totally fine”. If you hold any of those opinions, the most generous interpretation of that is that you’re evil. And probably also stupid. That is the MOST generous interpretation, mind.
Saying that austerity is always bad is pretty dumb too. Economic policy is hard. It’s not a simple as shoving one lever in one direction as far as possible forever.
For example, “austerity” could mean ending corporate subsidies, taxing the wealthy, auditing the wealthy, reducing the military budget, canceling freeway expansions, etc. Too much public debt can absolutely be a bad thing and needs to be controlled.
I concede that you’ve got a point that austerity isn’t an all or nothing proposition. But your examples are laughable. No country that has implemented “austerity measures” has ever interpreted that as “ending corporate subsidies”, or “taxing the wealthy”, or in any way fucking with the wealthy or military’s purse. It just doesn’t happen. I agree, that would be an amazing thing. But it just doesn’t exist in human history. What ends up happening instead is that they cut the educational budget. Or they cut social programs, like housing subsidies or food subsidies. Because governments aren’t run by the lowest common denominator, who actually benefits from those programs. They’re run by the wealthy. So no government is going to fuck over its supporters by cutting their benefits.
I think we need to have better conservative content. All of what your describing sounds like negative characterizations of conservatives made by far left individuals.
Yes, there are some absolute morons in the world. Probably a lot of them. But not all conservatives are morons, despite what many left leaning people would like to believe due to the polarization brought about by social media echo chambers.
The conservatives you’re describing are becoming more uncommon by the day. So much of conservative politics now is driven by misinformation and fear, I legitimately can’t remember the last time I had a constructive conversation with a conservative. They live in a different world, which makes constructive discussion almost impossible.
due to the polarization brought about by social media echo chambers.
Due to the actions of recent right wing political parties whe gaining any power.
That’s a bit like saying
"How dare you call us all arsehole. Because we keep voting for arseholes to lead our parties. "
Unless you and others are prepared to form a right wing that opposes these ideas. Then that is the reputation the right deserves.
For the record, I would not consider myself right wing. But I do oppose many leftist ideologies. Grievance studies (Critical race theory, queer theory, and other ideologies based in post modern belief systems), for instance, are eroding many useful and productive enlightenment ideas. Color blindness is a legitimate way to reduce racism. Instead, leftists believe they should elevate group identity at all costs, thereby expanding and heightening racism. Queer theory denies human physiology, elevating the idea that everything is socially constructed. This framework is a grave distortion of the reality.
I agree that conservatives need to do a better job with their policies. Trump was a stain, and the few (okay maybe more than a few) loud idiots in the party make conservatism look bad. But if left wingers only get their information about right wingers from hyper left sources, we are going to have a lot of distorted views.
On social media, people are served more and more radical content. Much of that content includes great distortions of the “other side,” which pushes people further into an untenable and undesirable belief system.
We need more debate and we also need people to stop simply calling the other side morons.
Grievance studies (Critical race theory, queer theory, and other ideologies based in post modern belief systems), for instance, are eroding many useful and productive enlightenment ideas.
Have you studied any of these yourself? Or are you relying on characterizations of them you heard in media?
Color blindness is a legitimate way to reduce racism.
In theory, sure. But in practice it often gets used as a rug to sweep racism under.
Instead, leftists believe they should elevate group identity at all costs, thereby expanding and heightening racism.
Keep on mind this is a society where certain groups have been marginalized and terrorized for decades or even centuries. “Elevating” them is only a reaction to that long-entrenched bigotry. But (what’s that quote?..) when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Attempting to bring historically marginalized groups into equal footing with mainstream groups probably will look like they’re being “elevated” to the people who enjoy the privilege of being accepted broadly by default.
Yes, I have a Ph.D., you will encounter grievance studies and post modern ideologies when you pursue this path. I have indeed studied the philosophical foundations of these ideologies. I don’t agree with post modern ideologies, nor do I agree that you can state that something is purely constructed by a culture. An individual is defined both by their physiology and their societal structure. It’s physiology and culture. Post modernism denies objective truth. I believe in objective truth. I also believe in intentionality, which post modernism denies. We could go on. Stop using the “have you actually studied this” argument and actually engage in productive debate. An appeal to academic authority is really not useful here.
It seems some forget, for instance, that the native population of America benefitted greatly from their encounters with colonial people from France and Britain. They sold and traded items. They learned knew technologies. Hell, many native tribes fought alongside the Americans during the American revolution. They also fought alongside France. The whole situation of the American colonies is really messy. Anyway, colonialism is not a black and white issue.
It seems some forget, for instance, that the native population of America benefitted greatly from their encounters with colonial people from France and Britain.
ah, yes, the minimum of 30 million people killed just in the Americas really benefited. get out of here with this settler colonialist apologia, my dude. you are a textbook case of why nobody is interested in hearing out conservative “thought”, which appears to be impossibly tied to being pro-genocide.
Either you’re the stupidest person who has ever received a PhD in the world, or you’re a fucking liar. There’s absolutely no god damned way that you can hold this many imbecilic, counter-to-reality views while having had to engage with primary sources for the multiple years it took to achieve a PhD. Stop lying, seriously. Nobody buys your bullshit anyway.
Queer theory denies human physiology, elevating the idea that everything is socially constructed
You’re already getting pushback on your other points, so I thought I would weigh in here. Biologically speaking, sex is multifaceted, variable, and somewhat malleable. Even anatomically or physiologically scientists say that gender and sex are not as simple or clean cut as you are making it out to be. Additionally, gender diverse people can be found across all cultures and throughout history - transgender people are not an invention of the post-modern era.
I don’t think that acknowledging the reality that human experience is complex and multi-faceted is a left wing value. It is evident to anyone who honestly engages with scientific consensus and with the lived experiences of LGBTQ folks that those people exist. They’re not going anywhere, and I don’t think it’s especially “left wing” to say we ought to make space for them in society to just live their lives as they are.
Colour blindness is not a way of combatting racism.
If you have a real world system, and you bias it heavily to be unequal, then you try and correct it by biasing it to be equal, the average output is still vastly unequal, and the absolute best case scenario you can hope for is that it will trend towards equality over time without ever reaching it.
There’s a reason that people who actually study and think about the topic come out as antiracist and people who don’t think it about it except when it inconveniences them just wish everyone would stop talking about it and we could pretend like it didn’t exist.
Yes, it is. There are a lot of academics that have fallen prey to post modern ideologies like anti racism. But there are also academics that haven’t, like myself and John McWhorter.
‘nuh uh I don’t believe that’ isn’t an argument.
I’ve explained how balanced system + inequality + balanced system = inequality, and you’ve just said “nuh uh that’s not convenient for me”.
Wow, what a shocking comment. Explains your original I suppose.
You can’t just lay judgement on something because you don’t like it. You need to actually understand it, hopefully your read the other responses you got with an open mind, lest ye drift deeper into bigotry via ignorance (chosen ignorance, at that)
To be absolutely clear to anyone who runs across this, this person has been banned from our instance, you don’t need to report it again. The only reason this reply is still up, is for others to see all the ways in which this person is wrong and the whole they dug themselves when they did reply to someone and were rightfully reported and ejected from our instance.
leftists believe they should elevate group identity at all costs,
And this very clearly indicates that your own Ideas have little left wing ideas. Seriously lack unbiased input.
As that statement is entirely false.
As I said. Anyone can set up an instance with any political ideal they like. But if you fail to remove commenters with ideas that oppose the right of others to exist as free entities. No one wanting top join you. Is not removal of your right to free speech. No one is banning right wing ideals. If you fail to sell them in a way people want to listen to. That is your issue, not ours.
I have yet to see a modern conservative position that is more backed by real world evidence than whatever more progressive position it opposes.
Climate change? Denying overwhelming scientific consensus. Gun control? “It doesn’t work”, even though it works in every other western country. Healthcare? “But the death panels will decide if you get to live”, they don’t exist, and are used as pretense to ignore all those people who die because they can’t afford treatment. Car infrastructure? It’s literally better for drivers if more people are using transit or cycling. Student loans? I don’t even know what the argument is here except “I had to pay them so everyone else should too”. The money certainly isn’t going towards the teachers.
Some of these are US specific, but the sentiment is the same everywhere. The list goes on and on. If someone refuses to listen to any reason or evidence and instead bases their worldview on only their own, limited lived experience, why shouldn’t they be characterized as a moron? And if they understand that their view isn’t based in reality and they hold it anyways, why not call that actively malicious?
I’ve always loved the irony of the argument that if the government pays for healthcare, there will be “death panels” that decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t. Because those already exist under and directly because of a system of private healthcare funding where if you don’t have enough money, you’re refused treatment. Meanwhile under a system of public healthcare funding, people get treatment based on who’s most in need of the resources available, and that’s only if the system is already over capacity.
Lmao fucking seriously.
Routinely my primary fucking care physician will approve a prescription just for my fucking insurance to say you know what, we will BLOCK that medication from being released to you at the pharm cuz we don’t wanna pay for it yet. Try again next week!!
god fucking damnit like let me just pay for it out of pocket!! They won’t let me.
Private insurance death panels are alive and well lol
- skymtf ( @skymtf@pricefield.org ) English27•1 year ago
The issue is the party overwealming supports these ideas, we are not debating what color school busses should be or how we should ensure we have clean water into the future, we are instead debating should X group be allowed to live. An option that involves taking rights from others based on misinformation isn’t an opinion.
I would agree with you, but at least in the US majority of conservatives fully embraced those moronic ideas.
The people that call themselves conservatives no longer are conservatives, their only goal is how to hurt “liberals”.
At this point true conservatives that still care about the country started voting for democrats or not vote at all, but they are now labeled as RINOS.
I know it is a loaded term, and many will quickly dismiss it, (but it is correct given the definition), but the party was taken over by fascists and real conservatives aren’t doing anything to take their party back.
At this point true conservatives that still care about the country started voting for democrats
Compared to most countries, Democrats are conservatives. And Republicans are extreme right wing.
The US doesn’t have a left wing party. Nor even a truly centrist one.
True. Many of them are just plain evil. But I would argue that the vast majority are some combination of evil and stupid.
Yes, this is true, many conservative people are smart - they worked out that in order to get money and power they can exploit conservative talking points easily because they don’t have to be truthful, thoughtful, or in any way care about other people
I think we need to have better conservative content.
Haven’t seen a lot of examples of that for many decades.
How far have you looked? If you are siloed among left wing ideologies (brought about by social media algorithms), you might grow to think that all conservative thinkers are morons. Needless to say, there is some good content, but you have to look harder and be willing to look into the “other side” in good faith. Most look at the other side with a hyper negative view.
Jonathan Haidt’s book on this topic is a good read. Also check out his “the coddling of the American mind”
I think it’s a matter of perspective. While there are intelligent conservatives, in America they vote Democrat.
What people refer to as Republican conservatism in the US is not actual cohesive conservative economic ideology, but a bunch of irrational bigoted nationalism. In the US they refer to actual conservatism as centrism.
America isn’t the only place were conservatism’s mainstream is lurching towards the extreme, though the Americans do seem to be leading that charge.
In my country, I’m generally considered a centrist (where we do have more a than 2 political parties to choose from), and I certainly don’t live exclusively in a left-wing silo.
I see the right moving further (and faster) from me than the left is, though.
You are essentially using a “no true Scotsman” defense here, which is wild given the public stances of America’s Conservative Party, the GOP.
You act like they are talking about outliers but the whole GOP is in lockstep with those awful stances and decisions. You say we need better conservative content? I say you need better conservative leadership because the majority of conservatives follow what they are fed of fox, oann, and whatever other sources of disinfo
Come back to us when the official party line isn’t supporting the big lie, or attacking climate change or attacking science and vaccines and masking, or that trans people shouldn’t exist, or that students should not be given the forgiveness that those with money get (PPP vs student loan forgiveness), or that Russia and Putin are not our allies nor role models, I could go on and on and on.
You want a better conservative image? You need better conservatives first. Talk about putting the cart before the horse
You say what we mention is mischaracterizations made by the left. Please, point out which are untrue
So your argument is, what, that Trump was a far-left deep-cover operative and that the overwhelming majority of US Republicans who loved him no matter what line he crossed were really being mind-controlled by George Soros?
The mask has been off for quite a while now, dude. You can’t just put it back on and pretend like nothing ever happened.
I think you’re seeing backlash against being involuntarily exposed to (and often pushed to see) unbridled and deranged hatred and fear on traditional socmedia.
A conservative opinion like “I’m not sure communism is practical” is something that can be engaged with pretty cordially, “I think that education should focus on marketable skills” is an opinion I think is pretty misinformed but it’s not something that exhausts me.
Unfortunately a lot of online conservatism is stuff like “I think there’s a conspiracy by $minority to mind control us with vaccines” or “Should we be trying to make queer people afraid?” which aren’t positions you can engage with.
What opinions do you mean specifically? The question you asked is too vague to help us sort out the welcome from the unwelcome.
Remember: “lower taxes for businesses” is a mainstream conservative opinion, but so are “children should not be allowed to know of the existence of gay people” and also “Breonna Taylor probably deserved to die” and also “Dr. Fauci is a mass murderer” and also “Trump won in 2020” and also “more brown children should be put in cages”, etc., etc., etc.
If the conservative mainstream is so hateful and bigoted that most of their opinions would not be allowed on a well-regulated platform, that is not the fault of the platform and it does not suggest that the platform has to change just to accommodate conservatives.
This reply is accurate and probably one of the reasons why you see entirely different platforms for people from different political positions. This isn’t the platforms fault, the fault lies with a lot of factors.
-The people who have accepted intolerance as a feature instead of a bug in their political party. -The politicians who continue to rile up audiences using dog whistles.
-The media who allow dog whistles on the air un-critically as though it’s legitimate political discourse. Family Guy example
-Money in politics, specifically Rich people and corporations being allowed to use their pile of money to get whatever they want at everyone’s expense.
One issue is that it sometimes gets hard to discuss something like “lower taxes for businesses” because some people will assume you want to murder all gay people and others come along who actually do want to do that and think they are on you’re side…
When positions are too simplifed into left vs right and all your other positions are assumed to be in line with the left vs. right debate there will never be any real discussion.
Wrapping “lower tax for business” in the culture war business is something done by the right-wing media and major political parties themselves(mainly using it as a guise to hide behind hateful policy)…
Jumping to conclusions on someone who just says they are conservative is a form of prejudice just like any kind of stereotyping.
However, as soon as they bring stuff up that indicates they care a lot about what people do in the bedroom, bathroom or they characterize a lot of what they don’t like as woke, the room for productive discussion narrows significantly.
fair enough!
Sure. The people who make that assumption are being rational in doing so, IMO.
Part of the reason for this is that people use the “lower taxes” thing as an excuse for, for example, having voted for Trump. “Oh no I’m not into all the cruel shit, I’m just a Fiscal Conservative™️” won’t convince anyone because nowadays you can’t vote for “lower taxes for businesses” without also voting for “trans people are all pedophiles”. Check your nearest Republican state legislature for verification of that fact.
Of course, the other important caveat is that “lower taxes for businesses” is usually packaged with “more deregulation”, which in itself is cruel, always gets implemented haphazardly, and never promotes the safe and sustainable economic growth that is promised.
I agree they are in a sense being rational because those beliefs do frequently go together. But doing so really eliminates any chance of a productive conversation. Maybe that wasn’t going to happen anyway, but now it’s definitely not going to happen. If we assume someone is always the most likely kind of person we’ll never talk to an actual person, just what we assume a person to be.
Conservatives I can deal with, but modern right wingers have lost their goddamn minds.
And the entire issue is that a lot of people who view themselves as moderate conservatives are enabling this ideological brain rot by not vocally disassociating it with more reasonable conservative positions. Because of that, I am way more comfortable saying that conservative voices should be viewed with suspicion than I used to be.
This is exactly how I feel. I even agree with some conservative ideas, but the fact that single-issue voters will condone so much lunacy in their party just because the candidate spouting it is on the red team makes me give any conservative the extreme side eye these days.
Agreed.
There were far too many things that were obvious red flags/deal breakers about many of their candidates, and I have a very hard time reconciling that people who I thought were “decent” were able to still vote for that.
I don’t mind disagreeing on politics. But too much of the right-wing party’s agenda right now is focused on hate and bigotry, and the fact that so-called “conservatives” willingly vote for it is honestly terrifying.
My brother is conservative. Small C. He recognises that the Tories are a shower of pricks and wants them to actually do conservative things, rather than focus on race baiting and hatred. I can talk politics with him, and enjoy doing so even though I’m getting more and more commie as every year passes.
He’s not a right wing shithead.
IMO, if they can bring well reasoned arguments based on some identifiably ideology that recognizes the rights of others to believe, think and act differently, then there is space for a conversation. But if they open with slurs and demogogory, then separate spaces are best. Like, if you want to support Trump on his policies and point to specific policy agendas and/or achievements, and we can have a conversation, its worth engaging. Or if you a Bernie Bro, let’s have the chat about how it would look.
My biggest fear with the MAGA-fication of the republican party is that we have lost the ability to have a “loyal opposition” (a great aspect of Parliamentary system) where the party points out the flaws of policy. It’s really something else when the party out of power tries to help the party in power understand the implications from the other sides POV. If a populists was to rise within the Democratic side, we could get the progressive version of Trump, and that should scare us.
My ultimate fear is a fake democrat gets elected.
Conservative ideology of maybe twenty years ago would likely have a lot better chance at meaningful discussion as opposed to right now. At this time, the political right in the US have thrown full-throated support for policies that many people (rightfully) feel are abhorrent.
For less repugnant topics, say, fiscal responsibility, that one is also a tough one to talk about seeing as the right is trying to gut every social program they can think of while doing all they can to cut taxes for the rich.
I know there are sane conservatives out there, but until that party steers their ship away from bigotry, hatred, and destroying the middle and lower class, you’ll probably not find a lot of discussion. Which is a shame because I think we do need two strong parties with differing viewpoints, but when the other viewpoint is rampant discrimination and further enriching the wealthy.
I feel like there is an idealization of far right conservatism that makes people believe that if we can just move past Trump and trumpism that things will go back to normal. That said republicans used to be more subtle and attempted to keep an air of respectability and civility about them, but a lot of the problem beliefs we had.
Tough on crime but not for white collar big crime politics, tax cuts for the wealthy, anti union stuff, racial dog whistling, gutting social programs, evangelical faux christian nonsense, election fraud, appointing judges, and etc were all present 20 years ago.
And regarding LGBT stuff both sides sucked 20 years ago, but conservatives were way worse.
Going back to at least reagan it’s been a shitshow it’s just decades of Reagan era neocon strategies coming up against impotent neolibs has brought us to where we are today. The current strategy is also far more transparent and aggressive and angry so things feel less civil, but sometimes I wonder if maybe thats not a bad thing. It’s easier to rally against trump than it is to rally against a guy you feel like you’d like to have a beer with.
- skymtf ( @skymtf@pricefield.org ) English27•1 year ago
20 years ago they were panicing over video games and gay marriage try again
20 years ago there wasn’t an attempted insurrection and a massive conspiracy militia movement.
Yeah the Republican party was still dumb then but it’s absurd to claim that they were the same then as now. At that point they believed what Fox told them instead of Fox having to report what they believe.
- skymtf ( @skymtf@pricefield.org ) English1•1 year ago
undefined> 20 years ago there wasn’t an attempted insurrection and a massive conspiracy militia movement.
There wasnt but they still wanted to pack the courts and ban abortion, we can’t pretend any of these ideas are good, not to mention the decades of failed trickle down economics
Also 20 years ago, Bush tried to fix how reading was taught in America.
Instead we are now fighting to undo the damage of three queuing.
I’m not sure why “I don’t want to see a space become an echo chamber” is always what gets said. Everywhere else IS a right wing echo chamber for the most part? Conservatives aren’t the ones chased from reddit and twitter?
What probably isnt welcome is questioning people’s right to exist, right to live unmolested because of someone else’s beliefs (and real molested, not "i saw a minority existed), and the right to make your own medical choices for yourself and your kids. Considering means testing has been proven a waste and the right opposes taxing fair share, i wouldn’t even argue that actual financial conservation is even a point the party makes.
So it’s really hard to see what need this space has for those talking points. Unless it’s actually about being open to real discussion, which frankly facts aren’t often on the side of the right, what good to this community do these ideas offer?
What should be asked is what place does the Right/Conservative philosophy as a whole have in the Lemmy ethos? Is it in and of itself could be argued to be an antithesis to the whole structure and philosophy. Can authoritarian ideals thrive where they cannot take power?
Tumblr i the only other real leftist space I think. You could maybe put baseline social media is somewhat leftist, tik tok, instagram, snapchat, most of those have a leftist lean, primarily because they trend younger. Your general use social media is going to have a left/right lean based on age demographics. That’s just the lean those general social medias are going to have.
Oh yeah tumblr. They pride themselves on being extreme i think in some of the spheres, where as i think nost people in this space are sharing deeply held beliefs. Most of the extreme stuff i see from there seems to be teens/outrage bait.
I forget the ages but i think beehaw/lemmy skews a tad older?
It basically has to skew older, probably 25 to 30+ The vast majority of those younger are going to be on tiktok, sc, insta, or something like discord. Lemmy will be considered more “left” overall than even reddit was. There will be of course bad instances, but i think pressure to defederate from them overall will be strong, especially when the “free speech” instances start having difficult legal questions thrown at them when their users inevitably start saying the quiet part out loud.
God i hate discords and what they have done with gaming documentation. I am completely turned off by any indie dev who requires you join their discord.
But im here, clearly i like forums. The fact that discord is basically backwards adding in forums with their threads thing is proof forums are still useful!
There’s probably a sizable group of younger individuals, talking like 14-18 that are your kinda weird kids who don’t have strong interpersonal social groups and instead compensate with the internet. The ones who find community in various instances are going to probably trend heavily left over time as they’re exposed, inadvertently, to things they wouldn’t normally be if they had more socionormative relationships.
No well adjusted 16 year old with a gaggle of friends is hanging out on sunday night in the summer on lemmy unless they have a very atypical social circle, autism, or both. And I don’t say autism in a derogatory way.
I was that kid back in 2004-2005 who had no social friend group and found connection with people through 4chan when I was 14. The exact same type of people who were attracted to chans way back when are the type of people that are going to be attracted to lemmy and federation. The only difference is this time the chans are already cemented and those who fall into the alt-right pipeline already have their destination mapped out for them. Those that aren’t sucked into the hateful rhetoric will likely find there way here as content seeps into the rest of the internet by osmosis.
Discord is extremely popular among well adjusted teen groups and social outcasts in equal order, it has strongly become “the third location” fpr a lot of people. Instead of hanging out at a skate park, or the mall, or in AIM chats, they’re hanging out in VC on Discord.
My experience hasnt been like yours at all and i am sorry you think you’re weird or something?
I mean i was a loner because geographically a lot of kids didn’t live near me. I took the time to learn about people and everyone who works with me likes me, but i also kept myself safe and i enjoy being weird.
My experience with discord is it’s a place like highschool where people get shut out if they arent as loud.
Im not sure why you’re anti thoughtful young people, i think people enjoy a lot of different activities and informing yourself of the world around you is exactly what makes well adjusted people, not late jight drunken hang outs.
It’s been weird. Have a good one and work on thinking better about tech and those hobbies. No one “well adjusted” really throws that stuff away as inherently maladaptive. I think in person peer pressure not to grow because you live around ignorant people wont have a lot of appeal to a good person.
I wasn’t meaning to imply it was maladaptive, just that the social norm is not for a 16 year old to get involved in something like this unless they’re already a bit divergent from the norm. Teenagers tend to do things their friends are doing, they congregate together, if they’re spending a lot of time in something like Lemmy it most likely means they don’t have strong social circles, because typical teenagers in the U.S. are on tiktok, instagram, and snapchat, and we only have like 60-70k lemmy users. Teenagers naturally gravitate towards the clique/niche that their peers use, and the evidence is overwhelming that teenagers are using tiktok, instagram, and snapchat more than any other social media and it’s not even close. Any teenagers currently using Lemmy are very likely to be LGBT, on the far left pipeline, or young tech enthusiasts, where their peers either don’t share their same interest, they don’t have strong social circles, or they’re in mostly rural areas.
Your average 4chan user back in the mid 2000s was a teenager in a rural town/suburb without any friends, not people in a major city where they had easy access to entertainment and social groups.
I guess it depends on which conservative or right wing opinions you’re talking about.
The traditional conservative opinion of smaller government hasn’t existed now for 50 years. Reagan, Bush, and Trump all grew the size of government.
The conservative talking point of “states rights!” flies in the face of states who want safe and legal abortions, or equal access to marriage rights, or the ability to acknowledge that LGBTQ+ kids actually exist.
Similarly if you’re talking about the conservative push to make it harder for black and brown people to vote, and make no mistake about it, they are specifically targeting black and brown people.
Let’s not even open the door to the fringe anti-vax or “election was stolen” movements.
So with all that conservative messaging off the table, what are you left with, honestly?
Conversation with right, left, middle, whatever are only productive if based on a principalled ideology. I disagree with the NeoCons of Bush and Cheney, but at least there is an ideology to work with. MAGA, on the other hand is defined by no principals other than authoritarian aims of “winning” where “winning” is making the other side mad.
The post truth world we live in makes this hard, though. Right now there is no shared truth, and with varied truthinesses out there, it makes the conversation hard. Using flat earthers as an example, the sheer rejection of math and science is astounding; having a principalled conversation is hard when the foundations are different.
And with 24hr news, breaking news, and global news, and only so much news worthy content, there is an incentive to come with with differentiation and that creates eco chambers. News Max isn’t going to bring on a CNN contributor (and vice versa) to challenge their views.
This is a good point. There are conservative viewpoints I find compelling, but they have basically nothing in common with MAGA, de santis, or any other popular conservative these days.
I find I can talk with individuals, when we both view the other as individuals, instead of a representative of republicans or whatever other moniker you give them. I mean, not everyone, but at least most people.
Modern conservative politics and “polite discussion” are like oil and water.
I just don’t understand what politics conservatives do other then push for laws that oppress people they don’t feel comfortable sharing a space with? I think the real political discussions are just happening within the left. Conservative party kinda needs to just go away, and the left split into socialists, democrats, and maybe independents. American politics and media have driven it’s two party system so opposed to each other, there is no mutual agreement anymore, you either take the blue side or the red side to any and all issues, and I’m sorry the red side is just so cartoonishly evil they just stand in the way of progress, or push to go backwards in history.
This is exactly how I feel. My lifelong best friend was raised Republican as a devout evangelical Christian, and even he switched to a Democrat when Trump won the primary.
I don’t want to be hostile to people seeking genuine political discourse, but I just don’t see that coming from the right. I see ongoing attempts to oppress, disenfranchise, and dehumanize vulnerable populations, and very little else. I understand we’re supposed to accept that whatever conservatives believe is a legitimate political opinion purely by virtue of so many people believing it. But I just can’t get there when the thing we’re supposed to accept is the dehumanization of people who are relying on us to be allies. I don’t reject conservatives out of hand because i value intolerance. I reject them because they do.
I think you’re flanderizing a very real issue (not feeling comfortable sharing a space with “the others”) and at the same time lumping a whole lot of people in a wide spectrum into the very edge of that spectrum.
Also, why is “American” politics the default? The left/right thing is worldwide, both in concept and as a real thing right now.
I’m not arguing for tolerance for the intolerant, and it pains me to have to clearly state this. I am arguing for a little empathy towards non radicalized people that lean conservative. “There but for the grace of God go I”, you know?
I’m not sure how one flanderizes, but I love that word now. I would have no issue sharing a space with somebody that leans right, because i already do. If there are valid arguments to be heard, I’d be happy to change my mind once the facts are on the table. Why do I put American politics as the default? I do this because of course I am from America, and the two parties are so wide apart it seems to fit the context of this post better, imo. I don’t want to provide a stage for hurtful viewpoints, but I don’t want to put anybody down who is making a valid attempt to change a hurtful viewpoint they have.
The problem with these discussions is that we seldomly use common definitions, which creates more heat than light. There was a strain of late 20th Century American conservatism that was rooted in fiscal restraint, loosely regulated free markets, and a privileged place for the nuclear family, civic duty, and the church as the glue holding (small) communities together. I’d vehemently disagree with most of these as policy anchors, but none of them are beyond civil discussion per se.
But here’s the problem: this late 20th-Century old school conservative thinking has been thoroughly hollowed out and co-opted to the point it is now completely meaningless. (The last administration was neither fiscally restrained, family oriented, nor in any way tied to any recognizable New Testament ‘love thy neighbor’ teaching. Yet, modern ‘conservatives’ can’t get enough).
Into these conceptual containers has been smuggled a toxic strain of (white) (Christian) (popular) nationalism … some may use the ‘F’ word … that is fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-science, intolerant, and is now emerging as violent - not just to vulnerable groups, which is a show stopper in itself - but to the whole damn country and democratic process. You don’t debate people like that. You crush them at the ballot box (or at Gettysburg or the beaches of Normandy if it comes to it).
So (pardon the TED talk), I think if someone wants to show up and debate whether we should be running budget deficits in excess of 3% of GDP, or whether we are regulating nuclear power too tightly, or whether industry X should be privatized/nationalized, they are probably good (at least by me - I can’t speak for others). But there is an understandable level of suspicion around the whole ‘conservative’ discourse, and if someone tries to smuggle ethno-nationalism, economic Darwinism, or bigotry toward vulnerable groups into the discussion under the guise of ‘traditional family values’ and ‘fiscal restraint’ … they are going to have a tough time.
Honestly I think the more traditional side of the Democratic party serves the ‘conservative’ angle quite well. They’re the ones questioning spending and how we’ll pay for it, advocating for pro business policies and the like.
The Republican party no longer seems to bring anything of merit to the table, having fallen to Christian nationalism and policies of hate.
All political discussion in the United States takes place within and to the left of the Democratic Party. Any discussion to the right of that is based on pure fantasy and possibly some individuals unsuccessfully trying to ground the conversation in reality.
Differing opinions and perspectives are permitted and encouraged, when able to be discussed rationally and with sufficient emotional awareness of others.
Arguments like, “my book says what you’re doing is murder”, “being who you are is a sin” leave no room for sensible discussion, and in many contexts amount to hateful conduct which is not welcome here. Remember that be(e)ing nice holds paramount, which puts a threshold on how heated arguments should get on Beehaw.
I’ve conversed and debated with conservatives a lot. While we might think the other is misguided in their opinion, we often have a productive discussion. Speaking in broad generalities, conservatives tend to believe in a universal, immovable moral structure, whereas liberals tend to believe in more nuances morality that works dynamically based on context and varies from person to person. It’s not an easy barrier to overcome, but with some efforts from both you and your debate opponent it is possible.
Two things are important to me when I debate. First, I try to reiterate their argument so that I am not misunderstanding it before I say may own. Second, I highlight and clarify where specifically our beliefs differ and where they overlap. The reason I do this, is that I debate others not to just be a shouting match where the loudest opinion wins, but find mutual understanding even in disagreement.
I wouldn’t conflate “liberal” with “progressive,” or, “leftist.”
Very different things.
More underrated comment. This country has lost political literacy in what liberal, progressive, conservative, etc meaning. I saw a clip of Darth Cheney talking when he was in the first Bush Admin and he making solidly conservative points, talking about the consent of the governed and legitimacy. You would never see that type of conversation on any of the Sunday morning shows; you just see the culture wars. I was shocked to see this past Meet the Press had J.D. Vance making well reasoned arguments.
IMO, the labels are short hands that cause people to immediately turn off their brains. Leftist in American Politics is a meaningless slur. And most conservatives don’t realize that the current flavor is actually Neoconservative.
Also it varies depending on the variety of English you’re speaking. While we do have a few people who follow the US a bit too closely generally when a British person is talking about ‘liberals’ or ‘liberalism’ they mean something quite different to what an American would be saying with the same terminology which leads to confusion on both sides. In the UK it sometimes means ‘the Liberal Democrat party’ but usually it just means ‘the opposite of authoritarian’, for example someone might say ‘Kier Starmer’s policy on drug reform is illiberal but the Green Party’s is liberal’ and it’s descriptive rather than ideological.
To be honest conservatism is pretty different on either side of the Atlantic too, or at least it was until both countries succumbed to populism and demagoguery. One-nation conservatism in the UK for example isn’t an intrinsically broken and contradictory ideology in the same way ‘Johnsonism’ is even though being well to the left of it myself I disagree with many of its premises, and while British politics outside of a minority of nutters doesn’t really care what religion you are on the whole it’s a considerable faux pas to let it be seen as directing your policy in office whereas American conservatives play to a very religious base. Blair over here still gets shit to this day for saying God will be his judge on Iraq, presumably forgetting the British electorate are a little less patient to judge than the almighty.
Great reply, thanks for adding non-American perspective. Always much needed.
Honestly, my big thing with right-wingers is that they come with no proof, and get mad when you start asking for facts and figures. Right now, I can see the effects of 40 years of trickle-down economic theory: it means that you need a degree to get just about any decent job in this country, and also unions should not exist because reasons. It really kind of biases me against right-wing talking points, to the point that I need to see proof. Treat it like a math problem and show your work or gtfo.
my big thing with right-wingers is that that they come with no proof, abd get mad when you start asking for facts and figures.
This post itself is a classic example of that… OP came with a “waaah there’s no place for right-wing discussion when lemmygrad gets a free pass”, disregarding the fact Beehaw has defederated with lemmygrad already. Then when many wonderful users come in to open the dialogue, saying “hey, there’s a place for you, here’s what we can discuss on this instance and here’s what you should take elsewhere”, there’s no interest in continuing discussion from OP (maybe they will reply later in the coming days).
Certain comments, like that from user @nicholas are full-on ragebait, leaving no room for discussion, and intending to antagonize each other by suggesting “everyone right of Bernie Sanders gets shit on here, just you watch the people that will reply to me”. The vibe I want in an online community is like a nice discussion at a coffee shop, the last thing I want is a direct escalation to a shouting match so I try to avoid goading people into that.
I hope you’re enjoying the discussion, and I hope you are understanding a lot of the excellent points made here, because I have not seen you engaging with anyone so far, at least not in the Hot replies. I was hoping to see that engagement. I don’t have much to add that has not already been added. It’s hard to unwrap the hate and bigotry from conservative ideology nowadays. Even so-called mainstream conservative ideas like “tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy will create more money and prosperity for everyone” rings pretty hollow after over 40 years of that sort of ideology having been very thoroughly put into practice with very little benefit one could name. It’s hard to engage when you can just sort of gesture to the current state of things and the lives of people who have grown up in the last 4 decades as being self-evident of the failure of that idea.
Basically, I ask, what does conservatism have to offer, really? I am completely open-minded and would listen, but you would have to do better than just repeating the same tired things I have heard my whole life, having grown up in a conservative catholic household and over 43 years slowly but surely drifting to the socialist atheist person I am now. Better believe I’ve heard a lot and am well-read. And there are a lot of people out there just like me.
It’s hard to unwrap the hate and bigotry from conservative ideology nowadays.
This is the trouble I have with conservative thinking now. Even here in the UK, where our Conservatives aren’t as bad as the Republicans in the US (yet), I’m at a place where I can no longer offer the benefit of the doubt to rightwing policies, because now they only seem to exist to make life hard for marginalised people. I can’t point at a single member of our government who supports what they’re doing because it’s what they genuinely believe to be the right thing to do. They’re all interested in how it can enrich them, and they’ll worry about the morality later.
I mean, say what you like about Margaret Thatcher (and believe me, I do), at least she seemed to actually believe in the policies she pushed through. She had an ideology, and was given room to try it out. And it worked. For her and her rich buddies.
But these days it just seems to be hatred and fear for the sake of riling up the proles because it keeps them in power. The power is the goal, not the governance.
People forget that Thatcher was a greengrocer’s daughter too rather than a product of the Eton to Oxbridge to Parliament pipeline of privilege. In my opinion Thatcherism was like a doctor giving a near-lethal dose of chemotherapy to a patient with a broken leg but at least it was done with the intention of helping the patient, I feel the present incarnation of Tories have known since Brexit that they’re bound for a decade out of power and just want to behave as much like Russian kleptocrats as they can get away with before the election next year.
I don’t mean the Russian kleptocrat line ironically either, Boris Johnson literally put the son of one into the House of Lords as the Baron of fucking Siberia. You can’t make this up.
I can’t point at a single member of our government who supports what they’re doing because it’s what they genuinely believe to be the right thing to do.
While I may just not be well enough informed, I’m pretty sure Ben Wallace sincerely believes that providing support for Ukraine to repel the Russian invasion is in the best long-term interests of the UK (whether you personally agree with him that it does or not.)
I do agree that most of the members of recent UK government’s have been largely preoccupied with projects that directly benefit them (or people funding them) at the cost of the nation and the world and anything other than their own personal self-interests.
It’s worth trying to be aware of the areas where that isn’t the case as best as possible. If nothing else as important practise for trying to pick out the few buried nuggets of good from the next government…
Very well said. It’s also always helpful to focus on specific examples or - if you want to generalize - on particular studies or election results or whatever. Broad assertions are often too broad to be useful (he said, asserting broadly lol).
I often struggle with ideology itself. I consider myself apolitical, so when I refer to “conservative” communities, I’m not referring to extreme individuals on either the left or right side. Essentially, I am seeking people who are pragmatic and realistic. These are individuals who prioritize double-blind peer-reviewed scientific studies over personal emotions or desires regarding how they wish the world would be. Ideologists tend to surround themselves with like-minded people, creating an echo chamber, and disregard reality in order to support their preferred narrative. They are unwavering in their beliefs, treating them almost like religious dogma. Consequently, policies based on these false narratives can have detrimental effects on those who don’t subscribe to those beliefs.
I think you really hit the nail on the head. People are so sensitive to conservative viewpoints because palatable conservative arguments are so often, if not always, a trojan horse to get their foot in the door and then spout bigotry and hate.
I feel like it’s not a matter of which side and more if the position that someone tries to advertise is clearly lacking empathy or consideration towards others.
If that’s all the right-leaning topics are about, I don’t know what to tell you really.
To add to this, when “right-wing” position’s involve taking away basic rights (abortion), why would they be welcome anywhere?
