Not knocking your worthy efforts, but the vast majority of people don’t turn conservative because of ideological reasons, they do it because they want to keep what they acquired over their lives.
The people don’t become conservative any more because everyone younger than 40 pretty has pretty much gotten the economic middle finger across the board, so people turn radical instead. If I have nothing to lose I don’t feel protective of the status quo.
But the greedy fucks in charge around the world are so removed from the reality of life they cannot see past their bank account, and would rather concede to fascism to keep things going for a bit longer, than making the needed changes. For the lost generations and the planet itself.
Well it’s worth noting that teenage boys have started leaning a bit more to the right, likely in large part because of Andrew Tate and others in the manosphere, plus right-wing think-tanks like PragerU targeting schools and kids.
Though it’s not like the gap between conservative and liberal boys is that big, plus it’s not uncommon to hear from men on the left say that they had a phase of watching Ben Shapiro debate compilations only to grow out of it, so it’s not like this is the end of the world.
I guess we can only hope that the latter is a stronger motivating factor than reactionary propaganda and efforts to curtail education that are coming from the right.
PragerU is like barely removed from Nazi propaganda. It’s so fucking insidiously and evilly incorrect I can’t believe YouTube allows it at all. Fucking YouTube
What exactly are older people afraid of losing? It’s not like even the farthest left politicians are in favor of doing anything more radical than raising taxes on people who are wealthier than the vast majority of boomers.
I don’t think they are afraid of losing anything specific. It’s ingrained at this point.
“If you made straight A’s and someone else made straight F’s, how would you feel if you both ended up with C’s? That’s fair right? No? Welcome to the Republican Party. Isn’t everyone who doesn’t agree with this an idiot? I’m glad we aren’t idiots.”
I grew up homeschooled and the Christian curriculum my parents used had similar feeling brainwashing tactics. “Scientists searched their whole lives to disprove the Bible, then ended up Christians instead!” Making you feel smart for not wasting your life like the other guy, you are already in the “good” group.
I’ve grown up in the same educational situation, and this is exactly what I’ve experienced. Their attempted indoctrination turned me into a liberal, antichristian agnostic. But with mental health issues, because emotional abuse is better than “letting your kid go to hell”…
Well Jesus was a peace loving socialist hippy, who would have been seen as a woke liberal by any US Christian conservative. They would have crucified him and not seen the irony.
When one person uses a word with an unusual meaning, they’re just wrong. When a whole country does it it’s a difference of dialect. Are you gonna try to argue that American English is wrong?
Being protective of your good fortune at the expense of others is itself part of an ideology, so I don’t see why you felt the need to contradict and condescend. A person who’s not a piece of shit would have no business being a conservative, no matter how privileged they are.
Now go argue with someone else because I’m getting big reddit energy from you, and it’s making me anxious.
How about I express myself as I see fit, and you compose yourself for the next time someone writes in a way that makes you feel “anxious” yet at the same time unable to control the urge to lecture them.
Who are you to tell me how I should express myself?
The only big reddit energy was this comment and the subsequent doubling down. The comment above was an even handed rebuttal, this response is tone policing and name calling.
You may disagree with his rebuttal but this is not how you respond to adversity.
I don’t understand why they even went so off the rails. I just gave an addition to their statement which I prefaced with positive affirmation, to make sure the following text isn’t misinterpreted as ridiculing them in their effort.
Granted I l maybe shouldn’t have cursed as much, but I didn’t even insult anyone specifically, not even republicans as some other people suggest. Just the political leadership that is complicit in suppressing the needed change to save our ecosystem and remedy the ridiculous inequality mankind has to endure.
Apparently that’s enough to make them block me and then continue to rant about me in random comments.
Guess im done with this conversation, it turned weirdly toxic for no fault of mine.
That’s EXACTLY MY POINT. If someone agrees with you, then why lead with something as pretentious and haughty as “Not to knock your worthy efforst, but…”
Why talk down to someone like that and adopt the tone of a pretentious debatelord when you ultimately agree with the other person?
I encountered people like that all over reddit, so I recognize them – the type of people who think any conversation is a debate that you must “win.” It’s precisely because he does agree with me that I’m so miffed.
They weren’t being pretentious or haughty. They amended one of your statements because it was a little inaccurate, then agreed that your wider point is correct. Because, yes, “wanting to hold on to what you have earned” is indeed an ideologically driven position
It wasn’t, though. There was nothing I said that needed amending, nor nothing they said that effectively amended. And they weren’t called upon to do so. They could have said the same exact thing without coming off like a prick.
Let’s please keep this civil. I respectfully disagree, but I have no problem with you voicing your opinion. The issue is your assumption that the person who disagrees with you is a horrible individual, simply because they have a different opinion. I don’t even care who’s right at this point - we can debate an issue without insulting each other. And even if you’re enraged by it, hiding that fact and calmly countering their opinion with logic is far more effective at winning over an audience…
Edit: Before any accusation of unfair treatment is made, I’d like to clarify that I disapprove of the original comment’s rhetoric as well - there was no good reason to insult conservatives (“greedy [expletive]”) like they did.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Conservatives should be systemically and socially deplatformed and disenfranchised.
My issue with the person I was speaking to was the haughty arrogance they led with, presuming to argue with me about… what? Nothing they said contradicted what I was saying; yet, they come at me like a debatelord?
And now you have the arrogance to lecture me on the correct take ™? Literally cis white male energy. stfu
There wasn’t any “haughty arrogance,” they were just adding on to what you said with their view, and (from my understanding) were attempting to be polite by clarifying how your point still stands. Not everything is an argument…
What the fuck? The irony of you pointing this out to me when the other guy leads with things like ““Not to knock your worthy efforts, but…” like a pretentious debatelord who’s full of himself. I agree that not everything is an argument, which is exactly why I was calling him out.
I’m genuinely sorry for misgendering you and for bringing race into it. It’s not that people aren’t reacting positively to my critique. I don’t care about that. It’s the other person talking down to me like I’m a fool or a child and he’s in some formal debate that he has to “win.” The last thing I need are other people inserting their opinions into the mix about how I should speak politely to that person when he was being such a cock.
And what I meant by “cis white male energy” is people feel the need to tell you their opinion, to the point that multiple people are dogpiling you telling you the same thing, none of which ever addresses the real issue.
To what extent do you think education has played a role in allowing kids to critically analyse these types of people. Because in my history classes, we learned about ways people influenced others in nefarious ways and I’m wondering if kids see the same common pattern and know when to avoid.
Oh, I definitely think it’s played an important role. There’s a reason the right wing regularly attacks education. Seems to be a global thing, too – not just the US.
Good question, anyone that has an education will tell you it’s changed their life and I believe that too. Even though sometimes it’s boring, the advantage is just too good for future children. Just suspicious that right wing wants to reverse progress.
It’s become unfortunately popular in some circles to view education as strictly a state’s propaganda tool, but in spite of its flaws, I’ve been pretty impressed by how effective it can be in the hands of skilled and passionate groups of individual educators.
That’s not to say there aren’t bad teachers (and don’t even get me started on administrators and legislators), but I do attribute a lot to what it has accomplished, for example, in my remote state, and that’s in spite of being regularly attacked by christofascists. When I think about it, I’m not sure I’d have much of a healthy perspective on things if not for some influential teachers. I’m a huge fan of public education, and I think we need to speak up for it whenever we can. It’s tragic what’s happened to it these past few years in my state and others.
“I just wish there was a place I could talk about maintaining the structures that oppress billions but keep me feeling comfortable and superior without those who are negatively impacted telling me I’m a piece of shit”
Why not actually respond to what they said? Conservatism is inherently about conserving power in the elite. It seems a bit immature to respond to an (admittedly snide and sarcastic) challenge to your beliefs with a personal insult. All they did was accurately break down what your comment represents.
I’m having a dozen conversations and 80% of the time when I click on the response in my inbox to go back to the context it takes me to another post all together.
I don’t even know what our conversation has been up to this point.
What did they say? And then how did I respond? I wish you could see my inbox with all of the personal attacks I’ve received not only today, but over the last two months over different accounts lol
So if someone is being an idiot to me, I don’t have a problem being an idiot back. If you’re respectful, I’ll have a respectful conversation with you.
That entire comment was just a dodge. Do your due diligence and click “show context” (it is the bare minimum effort), and stop avoiding the subject. Or just don’t respond if you don’t want to discuss.
If you want to know what they were talking about - I already summed it up in the comment you’re responding to. Precisely so you couldn’t excuse dodging the point a second time. And yet, here you are, doing exactly that.
Do you deny that conservatism is about conserving the power in the established elite? And if so - how?
Lol this is the kind of thing that shows up in my inbox over and over and over again
I just told you, I click on the reply and it takes me to some random part of the thread. When replies start getting nested and there’s a lot of comments I can’t find the posts. And I don’t really care that much to spend the time searching, when my inbox keeps filling up with messages like the one I linked.
Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.
Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.
This is “state’s rights” level of beating around the bush.
What traditions? What values? What institutions? I’ll tell you which ones.
The “tradition” of hierarchy and dominance, of the supremacy of capitalism and the Protestant work ethic, which have inevitably created an elite class.
The “values” of hyper individualism, competition and deference to authority, which have led to oligopolies forming and exerting control over society, to be defended by the state at all costs.
The institutions of the state and capital. Need I say more?
What Lemmy client are you using? All the ones I’ve tried allow you to jump right to the comment thread to read the comment in context. Reading via inbox sounds really disjointed and painful.
Its because for us in America there is nothing to argue for on conservatism that is appealing. Our democrats are center-right. What do we have to discuss between extremists and centrists of the same side? What companies should be bailed out first? Which lobbyist donate the fattest cheques? Its abysmal. So no, you won’t find any citizens who want to discuss with conservatives same as you won’t find many willing to discuss with the Taliban.
But can we start with an agreed on definition of the term ‘extremist’?
My point is that, if you think 300 million other people in your country are extremists, and there are any 350-ish million people in your country - mayyyyybe the 300 aren’t the extremists and maybe you are.
That doesn’t make sense. Looking at the US, there appears to be around 18% on the extreme right, 60 percent on the moderate right, 20% on the moderate left to center, and 2% on the extreme left.
But the media reporting on them appear to be weighted extreme right and left.
Populist politics and media have resulted in many countries around the world becoming less tolerant of opposing views, which has driven many discussions (and more people) to ideological extremes.
But you can have 50% extreme left and 50% extreme right in a country easily. Just means nobody’s willing to compromise on anything.
I’d like to see what the definition of ‘extreme left’ and ‘extreme right’ is to pair with those numbers. Is it something the ADL or NAACP came up with?
It does. I shortened it a bit. The conservatives usually use many words, and they might try not to sound racist, but when pressed, they more or less admit they want certain groups of persons not to exist, women to have fewer rights, and so on. Back to barbarian times and war crimes basically.
because you are looking for a platform that will be more open to conservative users. I keep hearing conservatives complain they have nowhere to go, but there is a platform specifically for them, and I don’t know why they won’t use it
There’s nothing to debate with conservatives. If you were a reasonable person looking for good faith discussion you wouldn’t be a conservative. So no one will engage with you because its a waste of time at best.
You have the entirety of human history at your fingertips and you’re too lazy to seek out information. No one wants to babysit you through Wikipedia.
It is also my experience dealing with conservatives that any time you people get DESTROYED you people get really angry, like threateningly angry.
I’ll give you a concrete example: the other poster whinging about immigration. Do you know the history of immigration laws? Do you know the causes of immigration? What are the effects of immigration? What are the impacts to communities? Do you understand current and historical colonialism? Or did newscorp tell you immigrants are scary (especially the brown ones)?
“You are a waste of time at best”
“You’re too lazy to seek out information”
Read the comment you replied to. It’s a single sentence. I cannot state it any simpler.
No I do not know the entire history of immigration legislation, even pertaining to the US. Yes I know causes of immigration, but likely not all of them. Yes I know what I don’t know, which is why I don’t debate about immigration. I know it is entirely too difficult for people seeking to immigrate OR seek asylum in the US to become citizens, and I’d go as far to say it’s impossible for most. Yes we need to fix our southern border, because we are actively treating immigrants like trash and not humans seeking a better life. Open borders, for the most part, are good borders. And no I did not read the other poster’s comments.
I didn’t use you correctly in my previous comment. I meant in order to have a conversation about a particular topic, we have to go through all the prior assumptions to even begin a conversation. I did not mean to ask you in particular about immigration (and the other poster is not from the US), I was pointing out how much education and discussion must be had. The reason I brought up those points is if you were to look up the immigration laws passed in the early 1900s they were explicitly racist. If you look up the repercussions of immigrants on communities, they are mostly very positive. If you find out about western international policies and the displacement of people due to those policies, you’ll find most immigration is driven from instability caused by those policies. All of which is to say that immigration is a non-issue. Yet its a conservative talking point you all want to discuss, incessantly, because it plays well with xenophobic racists.
I have yet to see a conservative policy that is defensible in any way. The only thing they’re right about is yes, if you give power and money to corporations the stock market goes up.
All of the political tests I’ve ever taken have named me a ‘classic liberal’. There are so many subdivision of political leanings that it gets pretty confusing.
I call myself a conservative because I believe in the family unit being the backbone of our society. The most important thing in the world. I believe in small government, I believe in free market capitalism, I think taxes should be minimal and government should be responsible with balancing the budget.
Im not overly religious, but I think religion has a lot of good lessons to teach. I think the Bible creates fences around issues and asks us to do our best not to cross them, but those fences are far enough away from the real issue that we need to avoid to mean it’s not a huge deal if we step over the odd one here or there. I don’t take the Bible 100% literally.
As for social topics, I’m much more liberal than where I am with governing. This is why I voted for Justin Trudeau back in like, 2015.
I believe drugs should be legal, sex work should be legal, I think we should have less laws in general. I respect the idea of the police, but I realize a lot of them are just losers from highschool who got picked on and now they have a gun and a badge.
I had a long soul searching introspective moment on abortion when my wife became pregnant with our first child and we were talking to the doctor about testing for Down’s syndrome.
I realized that for me, I am against it. But I’m not so quick to say it should be banned. I do think there should be common sense restrictions though.
families and free market capitalism are exclusive of each other.
Free market capitalism wants both parents and any children working as young as possible and as old as possible, as much as possible.
Free market capitalism does not - practically - support childcare (and childcare - bringing in someone else to care for your children - is the opposite of being a family), it does not support time off, it does not support vacations, it doesn’t support education, it doesn’t support public transportation (important when you have small kids), it doesn’t support free Healthcare for childbirth, pre- and post-natal care, it doesn’t support retirement so grandparents can help.
It also supports strict immigration and very much looks down on people immigrating with their families or brining their families over — leading to such terms as “anchor baby”
I’m a millennial immigrant to the USA. We can’t have kids because my wife’s job is location based and tied to student loan forgiveness and retirement divestment, so her family are thousands of miles in one direction, my family are thousands of miles in another direction. If we have a baby she loses her job, as theres no maternity or paternity leave, can’t get her student loans forgiven, can’t ever retire, I get 2 weeks off a year + public holidays and I often work 8am to 6 or 7pm - I would literally never see my child.
Captialism is directly responsible for the destruction of (this, but in my opinion all) families.
Yeah that makes sense. I think as an inevitable result of writing a brief online comment, you’ve expressed a quite vague and shallow perspective here, so if you don’t mind I’d like to dig into it a little bit. In particular, I’m curious about what you mean when you say you “believe in small government” and “free market capitalism”.
What sort of things do you think government should not be doing? Should people not be entitled to live a healthy life without being bankrupted? (I.e., should government not fund healthcare?) Are workers not entitled to fair treatment for their labour? (industrial relations laws and workplace health & safety.) Is public safety and order not important? (Fire departments, police, maybe the defence forces.) How do you feel when governments give subsidies to some businesses, like agriculture, mining, “bailing out the banks”, or private education?
You’ll note that some of these are things that conservative governments are associated with doing more of, while others are things conservative governments do less of. It’s why I’ve always found the conservative parties’ claims to be “small government” rather misleading. More of a marketing approach they use that doesn’t actually represent what they stand for, and thus not particularly useful in good faith political discourse.
Conservatism as an ideology believes in the existence of a “natural hierarchy”, where society is ordered into people with power and people without power, and the ones with power deserve that power because that’s the natural hierarchy. Conservatives have the primary objective to enforce that imaginary hierarchy. Basically they’re the remains of Pro-Feudalists from the early days of Capitalism.
This coincides well with modern day capitalism, which also wants to enforce a “natural hierarchy” - just in its case it’s capital vs. labor instead of powerful vs. powerless people.
If you want my opinion, I’d put you in the “right wing liberal” drawer. Which, in american dimensions (because the US does not have a political left wing), would be the democratic party. If you were an actual conservative, you would use abortion as an opportunity to enforce the “women < men” power dynamic for example, because that’s one of the imaginary “natural hierarchies” conservatives believe in.
The issue is that you rely on fear to gain support. You can’t just say, “I’m opposed to illegal immigration, we need to police our borders better.” Many people are interested in regulated borders. But then many on your side make it clear hate is their motivator, playing the xenophobic line and saying shit like “because these sand n*$&ers are murderers, terrorists and rapists.” And those who aren’t saying shit like that are silent.
I’m not interested in importing deeply conservative religious people to this country that are going to threaten the societal shift toward a secular society, especially at the specific time the SCOTUS is giving religions special privileges. But by no means do I need to cultivate hate in my heart or others, unless I’m a fuck.
Where the fuck are you hearing that? Every conversation I have with my conservative friends revolves around how much immigration is reasonably doable and what number is too much strain on the system.
There’s never a racist undertone to the conversation. Immigrants can come from Africa, or Mexico, or Poland. No one I know gives a shit about who they are, just what the policy around it is
What’s the proposal? Building a wall is a joke. It doesn’t work; ignores the need for migrant workers for things like farming that don’t have viable alternatives; And ultimately is a big grift by Republican donors to get bloated contacts to build it but never really complete it in anything meaningful way.
What methodology is use in determining numbers surrounding how much immigration is doable? Is there economic metrics involved in doing this? Which ones do you use?
You have a reasonable take. I’m sorry you’re going to get assaulted with messages. Lemmy’s a bit of a hive mind so just know you’re not unreasonable for wanting a space where discussion can be had without bad faith. Also a conservative by the way. I’m really much more moderate, but no one here would classify me as that since the scope is shifted
Right - the US overton window is dramatically shifted to the right, and the discourse on here does not accept that as a given but rather as a subject of critical analysis.
It’s a common mistake among conservatives that they believe everyone is as self-centered and greedy as they are
I’ve not become more conservative as I age because I’d kill myself before becoming that awful to people around me
Not knocking your worthy efforts, but the vast majority of people don’t turn conservative because of ideological reasons, they do it because they want to keep what they acquired over their lives.
The people don’t become conservative any more because everyone younger than 40 pretty has pretty much gotten the economic middle finger across the board, so people turn radical instead. If I have nothing to lose I don’t feel protective of the status quo.
But the greedy fucks in charge around the world are so removed from the reality of life they cannot see past their bank account, and would rather concede to fascism to keep things going for a bit longer, than making the needed changes. For the lost generations and the planet itself.
Well it’s worth noting that teenage boys have started leaning a bit more to the right, likely in large part because of Andrew Tate and others in the manosphere, plus right-wing think-tanks like PragerU targeting schools and kids.
Though it’s not like the gap between conservative and liberal boys is that big, plus it’s not uncommon to hear from men on the left say that they had a phase of watching Ben Shapiro debate compilations only to grow out of it, so it’s not like this is the end of the world.
Still, it’s also true that Millennials and Gen X are getting fucked by boomers when it comes to money: Millennials only hold 3% of total US wealth, and that’s a shockingly small sliver of what baby boomers had at their age
I guess we can only hope that the latter is a stronger motivating factor than reactionary propaganda and efforts to curtail education that are coming from the right.
PragerU is like barely removed from Nazi propaganda. It’s so fucking insidiously and evilly incorrect I can’t believe YouTube allows it at all. Fucking YouTube
40-54 year olds were 7-21 years old in 1990. That group had >30% of wealth? I have some doubts about these charts.
That’s because you’re reading the chart wrong. It’s showing the change in wealth for those age brackets across time.
People that were 40 in 1990 had a bigger share of the wealth than people who are 40 in 2020.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
What exactly are older people afraid of losing? It’s not like even the farthest left politicians are in favor of doing anything more radical than raising taxes on people who are wealthier than the vast majority of boomers.
I don’t think they are afraid of losing anything specific. It’s ingrained at this point.
“If you made straight A’s and someone else made straight F’s, how would you feel if you both ended up with C’s? That’s fair right? No? Welcome to the Republican Party. Isn’t everyone who doesn’t agree with this an idiot? I’m glad we aren’t idiots.”
I grew up homeschooled and the Christian curriculum my parents used had similar feeling brainwashing tactics. “Scientists searched their whole lives to disprove the Bible, then ended up Christians instead!” Making you feel smart for not wasting your life like the other guy, you are already in the “good” group.
I’ve grown up in the same educational situation, and this is exactly what I’ve experienced. Their attempted indoctrination turned me into a liberal, antichristian agnostic. But with mental health issues, because emotional abuse is better than “letting your kid go to hell”…
Well Jesus was a peace loving socialist hippy, who would have been seen as a woke liberal by any US Christian conservative. They would have crucified him and not seen the irony.
They were also warned about the antichrist, and then elected the embodiment of the warning almost identically.
It’s a popular theory that the antichrist thing was an attack on Nero, who was persecuting Christians at the time Revelations was written.
But then that means Trump is nearly identical to the Bible’s description of Nero.
That’s interesting. I’ll have to read up on it.
deleted by creator
Unless you’re talking to an American and making an incorrect assumption about what they mean by “liberal”.
deleted by creator
When one person uses a word with an unusual meaning, they’re just wrong. When a whole country does it it’s a difference of dialect. Are you gonna try to argue that American English is wrong?
Liberals are what socialists become when they grow up.
Being protective of your good fortune at the expense of others is itself part of an ideology, so I don’t see why you felt the need to contradict and condescend. A person who’s not a piece of shit would have no business being a conservative, no matter how privileged they are.
Now go argue with someone else because I’m getting big reddit energy from you, and it’s making me anxious.
Im not even sure how to respond to this. Okay? I suppose
Next time, either be considerate and don’t lead with a debatelord’s tone, or don’t comment at all if you can’t resist being an argumentative prick
How about I express myself as I see fit, and you compose yourself for the next time someone writes in a way that makes you feel “anxious” yet at the same time unable to control the urge to lecture them.
Who are you to tell me how I should express myself?
When you treat people like shit and throw pointed words at them, I’m going to call you out for it. I don’t owe you an apology.
But fair enough, I’ll block you. I had my fill of you neckbeards during my miserable tenure on reddit, and I never want to speak to you again.
Whom did I treat like shit in your opinion? I have not addressed anyone except nameless politicians.
Maybe spend less time arguing with people you say you don’t want to argue with and more on improving your reading comprehension
I understand that the last paragraph of their comment was unnecessary and inflammatory, but this (insults etc) is not the way to point that out…
Fair enough. I’ll compose myself
I get their point - the “greedy [expletive]” part was insulting and unnecessary. But I do think they are overreacting quite a bit…
The only big reddit energy was this comment and the subsequent doubling down. The comment above was an even handed rebuttal, this response is tone policing and name calling.
You may disagree with his rebuttal but this is not how you respond to adversity.
I don’t understand why they even went so off the rails. I just gave an addition to their statement which I prefaced with positive affirmation, to make sure the following text isn’t misinterpreted as ridiculing them in their effort.
Granted I l maybe shouldn’t have cursed as much, but I didn’t even insult anyone specifically, not even republicans as some other people suggest. Just the political leadership that is complicit in suppressing the needed change to save our ecosystem and remedy the ridiculous inequality mankind has to endure.
Apparently that’s enough to make them block me and then continue to rant about me in random comments.
Guess im done with this conversation, it turned weirdly toxic for no fault of mine.
Wow, what a hot take. I’m so thankful you stepped in to defend the debatelord. What a great use of your time!
Just a tip: If you have nothing constructive to add to a conversation, keep it to yourself. Have fun on my blocklist.
I think you ought to read beyond the first paragraph they wrote
And I think you ought to keep your thoughts to yourself, if you have nothing worth contributing besides haughty arrogance and presumption.
Besides, I did read their whole comment. That’s what I responded to.
Wtf dude chill
Just saying, the second and third paragraph seem to agree with you
That’s EXACTLY MY POINT. If someone agrees with you, then why lead with something as pretentious and haughty as “Not to knock your worthy efforst, but…”
Why talk down to someone like that and adopt the tone of a pretentious debatelord when you ultimately agree with the other person?
I encountered people like that all over reddit, so I recognize them – the type of people who think any conversation is a debate that you must “win.” It’s precisely because he does agree with me that I’m so miffed.
They weren’t being pretentious or haughty. They amended one of your statements because it was a little inaccurate, then agreed that your wider point is correct. Because, yes, “wanting to hold on to what you have earned” is indeed an ideologically driven position
It wasn’t, though. There was nothing I said that needed amending, nor nothing they said that effectively amended. And they weren’t called upon to do so. They could have said the same exact thing without coming off like a prick.
Let’s please keep this civil. I respectfully disagree, but I have no problem with you voicing your opinion. The issue is your assumption that the person who disagrees with you is a horrible individual, simply because they have a different opinion. I don’t even care who’s right at this point - we can debate an issue without insulting each other. And even if you’re enraged by it, hiding that fact and calmly countering their opinion with logic is far more effective at winning over an audience…
Edit: Before any accusation of unfair treatment is made, I’d like to clarify that I disapprove of the original comment’s rhetoric as well - there was no good reason to insult conservatives (“greedy [expletive]”) like they did.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Conservatives should be systemically and socially deplatformed and disenfranchised.
My issue with the person I was speaking to was the haughty arrogance they led with, presuming to argue with me about… what? Nothing they said contradicted what I was saying; yet, they come at me like a debatelord?
And now you have the arrogance to lecture me on the correct take ™? Literally cis white male energy. stfu
There wasn’t any “haughty arrogance,” they were just adding on to what you said with their view, and (from my understanding) were attempting to be polite by clarifying how your point still stands. Not everything is an argument…
What the fuck? The irony of you pointing this out to me when the other guy leads with things like ““Not to knock your worthy efforts, but…” like a pretentious debatelord who’s full of himself. I agree that not everything is an argument, which is exactly why I was calling him out.
deleted by creator
I’m genuinely sorry for misgendering you and for bringing race into it. It’s not that people aren’t reacting positively to my critique. I don’t care about that. It’s the other person talking down to me like I’m a fool or a child and he’s in some formal debate that he has to “win.” The last thing I need are other people inserting their opinions into the mix about how I should speak politely to that person when he was being such a cock.
And what I meant by “cis white male energy” is people feel the need to tell you their opinion, to the point that multiple people are dogpiling you telling you the same thing, none of which ever addresses the real issue.
To what extent do you think education has played a role in allowing kids to critically analyse these types of people. Because in my history classes, we learned about ways people influenced others in nefarious ways and I’m wondering if kids see the same common pattern and know when to avoid.
Just a thought 🤷
Oh, I definitely think it’s played an important role. There’s a reason the right wing regularly attacks education. Seems to be a global thing, too – not just the US.
Also just a thought, though!
Good question, anyone that has an education will tell you it’s changed their life and I believe that too. Even though sometimes it’s boring, the advantage is just too good for future children. Just suspicious that right wing wants to reverse progress.
It’s become unfortunately popular in some circles to view education as strictly a state’s propaganda tool, but in spite of its flaws, I’ve been pretty impressed by how effective it can be in the hands of skilled and passionate groups of individual educators.
That’s not to say there aren’t bad teachers (and don’t even get me started on administrators and legislators), but I do attribute a lot to what it has accomplished, for example, in my remote state, and that’s in spite of being regularly attacked by christofascists. When I think about it, I’m not sure I’d have much of a healthy perspective on things if not for some influential teachers. I’m a huge fan of public education, and I think we need to speak up for it whenever we can. It’s tragic what’s happened to it these past few years in my state and others.
I’m conservative, I’m not American though.
I wish there was a place we could talk about the issues we disagree on without assuming the other is PURE EVIL OMG HITLER HITLER NAZI!
Or DIRTY PEDO COMMIE HATES WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND WANTS US TO ALL BE GULAGED LITERALLY STALIN STALIN STALIN!
“I just wish there was a place I could talk about maintaining the structures that oppress billions but keep me feeling comfortable and superior without those who are negatively impacted telling me I’m a piece of shit”
Damn, man
It must be miserable being you
Why not actually respond to what they said? Conservatism is inherently about conserving power in the elite. It seems a bit immature to respond to an (admittedly snide and sarcastic) challenge to your beliefs with a personal insult. All they did was accurately break down what your comment represents.
I’m having a dozen conversations and 80% of the time when I click on the response in my inbox to go back to the context it takes me to another post all together.
I don’t even know what our conversation has been up to this point.
What did they say? And then how did I respond? I wish you could see my inbox with all of the personal attacks I’ve received not only today, but over the last two months over different accounts lol
So if someone is being an idiot to me, I don’t have a problem being an idiot back. If you’re respectful, I’ll have a respectful conversation with you.
That entire comment was just a dodge. Do your due diligence and click “show context” (it is the bare minimum effort), and stop avoiding the subject. Or just don’t respond if you don’t want to discuss.
If you want to know what they were talking about - I already summed it up in the comment you’re responding to. Precisely so you couldn’t excuse dodging the point a second time. And yet, here you are, doing exactly that.
Do you deny that conservatism is about conserving the power in the established elite? And if so - how?
https://lemmy.one/comment/2873366
Lol this is the kind of thing that shows up in my inbox over and over and over again
I just told you, I click on the reply and it takes me to some random part of the thread. When replies start getting nested and there’s a lot of comments I can’t find the posts. And I don’t really care that much to spend the time searching, when my inbox keeps filling up with messages like the one I linked.
Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.
Of course there’s a lot more to it than that.
This is “state’s rights” level of beating around the bush.
What traditions? What values? What institutions? I’ll tell you which ones.
The “tradition” of hierarchy and dominance, of the supremacy of capitalism and the Protestant work ethic, which have inevitably created an elite class.
The “values” of hyper individualism, competition and deference to authority, which have led to oligopolies forming and exerting control over society, to be defended by the state at all costs.
The institutions of the state and capital. Need I say more?
What Lemmy client are you using? All the ones I’ve tried allow you to jump right to the comment thread to read the comment in context. Reading via inbox sounds really disjointed and painful.
Yeah, that’s why they want change.
Its because for us in America there is nothing to argue for on conservatism that is appealing. Our democrats are center-right. What do we have to discuss between extremists and centrists of the same side? What companies should be bailed out first? Which lobbyist donate the fattest cheques? Its abysmal. So no, you won’t find any citizens who want to discuss with conservatives same as you won’t find many willing to discuss with the Taliban.
Honestly, it sounds like you’re the extreme one if you think the majority of everyone else is either centrist or extremist themselves.
How can you reconcile that?
If I understand what you’ve wrote you said;
You’re an extremist if you think the majority of other people are extremists.
Could you please elaborate on that?
If you want to do this, we can.
But can we start with an agreed on definition of the term ‘extremist’?
My point is that, if you think 300 million other people in your country are extremists, and there are any 350-ish million people in your country - mayyyyybe the 300 aren’t the extremists and maybe you are.
If that’s how you see the world
That doesn’t make sense. Looking at the US, there appears to be around 18% on the extreme right, 60 percent on the moderate right, 20% on the moderate left to center, and 2% on the extreme left.
But the media reporting on them appear to be weighted extreme right and left.
Populist politics and media have resulted in many countries around the world becoming less tolerant of opposing views, which has driven many discussions (and more people) to ideological extremes.
But you can have 50% extreme left and 50% extreme right in a country easily. Just means nobody’s willing to compromise on anything.
I’d like to see what the definition of ‘extreme left’ and ‘extreme right’ is to pair with those numbers. Is it something the ADL or NAACP came up with?
deleted by creator
Conervative: “please don’t call me a nazi hear me out first”
Normal people: “ok”
Conservative: “sieg heil, gas the jews”
Normal people: “you’re a nazi”
Conservative: “see you won’t even listen”
Right cause this fucking happens
It does. I shortened it a bit. The conservatives usually use many words, and they might try not to sound racist, but when pressed, they more or less admit they want certain groups of persons not to exist, women to have fewer rights, and so on. Back to barbarian times and war crimes basically.
What you’re looking for is certainly not on this platform
Unfortunately, I don’t think it exists anywhere
why aren’t you on truth social?
Why would I be?
because you are looking for a platform that will be more open to conservative users. I keep hearing conservatives complain they have nowhere to go, but there is a platform specifically for them, and I don’t know why they won’t use it
Why do we need to be in different places online according to our political leaning?
No one said you needed to be, just that it’s an option
deleted by creator
I want debate, not a right wing echochamber or roulette of insults
There’s nothing to debate with conservatives. If you were a reasonable person looking for good faith discussion you wouldn’t be a conservative. So no one will engage with you because its a waste of time at best.
You have the entirety of human history at your fingertips and you’re too lazy to seek out information. No one wants to babysit you through Wikipedia.
It is also my experience dealing with conservatives that any time you people get DESTROYED you people get really angry, like threateningly angry.
I’ll give you a concrete example: the other poster whinging about immigration. Do you know the history of immigration laws? Do you know the causes of immigration? What are the effects of immigration? What are the impacts to communities? Do you understand current and historical colonialism? Or did newscorp tell you immigrants are scary (especially the brown ones)?
“You are a waste of time at best” “You’re too lazy to seek out information”
Read the comment you replied to. It’s a single sentence. I cannot state it any simpler.
No I do not know the entire history of immigration legislation, even pertaining to the US. Yes I know causes of immigration, but likely not all of them. Yes I know what I don’t know, which is why I don’t debate about immigration. I know it is entirely too difficult for people seeking to immigrate OR seek asylum in the US to become citizens, and I’d go as far to say it’s impossible for most. Yes we need to fix our southern border, because we are actively treating immigrants like trash and not humans seeking a better life. Open borders, for the most part, are good borders. And no I did not read the other poster’s comments.
Not get the fuck off your high horse.
I didn’t use you correctly in my previous comment. I meant in order to have a conversation about a particular topic, we have to go through all the prior assumptions to even begin a conversation. I did not mean to ask you in particular about immigration (and the other poster is not from the US), I was pointing out how much education and discussion must be had. The reason I brought up those points is if you were to look up the immigration laws passed in the early 1900s they were explicitly racist. If you look up the repercussions of immigrants on communities, they are mostly very positive. If you find out about western international policies and the displacement of people due to those policies, you’ll find most immigration is driven from instability caused by those policies. All of which is to say that immigration is a non-issue. Yet its a conservative talking point you all want to discuss, incessantly, because it plays well with xenophobic racists.
I have yet to see a conservative policy that is defensible in any way. The only thing they’re right about is yes, if you give power and money to corporations the stock market goes up.
Let me know when you find it, I’m looking too
is there a reason you aren’t on truth social?
Oh poor you. Go fuck yourself with a rusty blade, asshole.
What’s your definition of conservative, and what is it about conservatism that appeals to you?
All of the political tests I’ve ever taken have named me a ‘classic liberal’. There are so many subdivision of political leanings that it gets pretty confusing.
I call myself a conservative because I believe in the family unit being the backbone of our society. The most important thing in the world. I believe in small government, I believe in free market capitalism, I think taxes should be minimal and government should be responsible with balancing the budget.
Im not overly religious, but I think religion has a lot of good lessons to teach. I think the Bible creates fences around issues and asks us to do our best not to cross them, but those fences are far enough away from the real issue that we need to avoid to mean it’s not a huge deal if we step over the odd one here or there. I don’t take the Bible 100% literally.
As for social topics, I’m much more liberal than where I am with governing. This is why I voted for Justin Trudeau back in like, 2015.
I believe drugs should be legal, sex work should be legal, I think we should have less laws in general. I respect the idea of the police, but I realize a lot of them are just losers from highschool who got picked on and now they have a gun and a badge.
I had a long soul searching introspective moment on abortion when my wife became pregnant with our first child and we were talking to the doctor about testing for Down’s syndrome.
I realized that for me, I am against it. But I’m not so quick to say it should be banned. I do think there should be common sense restrictions though.
Does that all make sense?
families and free market capitalism are exclusive of each other.
Free market capitalism wants both parents and any children working as young as possible and as old as possible, as much as possible.
Free market capitalism does not - practically - support childcare (and childcare - bringing in someone else to care for your children - is the opposite of being a family), it does not support time off, it does not support vacations, it doesn’t support education, it doesn’t support public transportation (important when you have small kids), it doesn’t support free Healthcare for childbirth, pre- and post-natal care, it doesn’t support retirement so grandparents can help.
It also supports strict immigration and very much looks down on people immigrating with their families or brining their families over — leading to such terms as “anchor baby”
I’m a millennial immigrant to the USA. We can’t have kids because my wife’s job is location based and tied to student loan forgiveness and retirement divestment, so her family are thousands of miles in one direction, my family are thousands of miles in another direction. If we have a baby she loses her job, as theres no maternity or paternity leave, can’t get her student loans forgiven, can’t ever retire, I get 2 weeks off a year + public holidays and I often work 8am to 6 or 7pm - I would literally never see my child.
Captialism is directly responsible for the destruction of (this, but in my opinion all) families.
Yeah that makes sense. I think as an inevitable result of writing a brief online comment, you’ve expressed a quite vague and shallow perspective here, so if you don’t mind I’d like to dig into it a little bit. In particular, I’m curious about what you mean when you say you “believe in small government” and “free market capitalism”.
What sort of things do you think government should not be doing? Should people not be entitled to live a healthy life without being bankrupted? (I.e., should government not fund healthcare?) Are workers not entitled to fair treatment for their labour? (industrial relations laws and workplace health & safety.) Is public safety and order not important? (Fire departments, police, maybe the defence forces.) How do you feel when governments give subsidies to some businesses, like agriculture, mining, “bailing out the banks”, or private education?
You’ll note that some of these are things that conservative governments are associated with doing more of, while others are things conservative governments do less of. It’s why I’ve always found the conservative parties’ claims to be “small government” rather misleading. More of a marketing approach they use that doesn’t actually represent what they stand for, and thus not particularly useful in good faith political discourse.
Yes but it doesn’t describe conservatism.
How would you describe conservatism?
Conservatism as an ideology believes in the existence of a “natural hierarchy”, where society is ordered into people with power and people without power, and the ones with power deserve that power because that’s the natural hierarchy. Conservatives have the primary objective to enforce that imaginary hierarchy. Basically they’re the remains of Pro-Feudalists from the early days of Capitalism.
This coincides well with modern day capitalism, which also wants to enforce a “natural hierarchy” - just in its case it’s capital vs. labor instead of powerful vs. powerless people.
If you want my opinion, I’d put you in the “right wing liberal” drawer. Which, in american dimensions (because the US does not have a political left wing), would be the democratic party. If you were an actual conservative, you would use abortion as an opportunity to enforce the “women < men” power dynamic for example, because that’s one of the imaginary “natural hierarchies” conservatives believe in.
The issue is that you rely on fear to gain support. You can’t just say, “I’m opposed to illegal immigration, we need to police our borders better.” Many people are interested in regulated borders. But then many on your side make it clear hate is their motivator, playing the xenophobic line and saying shit like “because these sand n*$&ers are murderers, terrorists and rapists.” And those who aren’t saying shit like that are silent.
I’m not interested in importing deeply conservative religious people to this country that are going to threaten the societal shift toward a secular society, especially at the specific time the SCOTUS is giving religions special privileges. But by no means do I need to cultivate hate in my heart or others, unless I’m a fuck.
Where the fuck are you hearing that? Every conversation I have with my conservative friends revolves around how much immigration is reasonably doable and what number is too much strain on the system.
There’s never a racist undertone to the conversation. Immigrants can come from Africa, or Mexico, or Poland. No one I know gives a shit about who they are, just what the policy around it is
What’s the proposal? Building a wall is a joke. It doesn’t work; ignores the need for migrant workers for things like farming that don’t have viable alternatives; And ultimately is a big grift by Republican donors to get bloated contacts to build it but never really complete it in anything meaningful way.
What methodology is use in determining numbers surrounding how much immigration is doable? Is there economic metrics involved in doing this? Which ones do you use?
If you can’t find a reasonable discussion about a question anywhere, then maybe the question you’re asking isn’t reasonable.
Or maybe not
Good luck with your wish, then.
You have a reasonable take. I’m sorry you’re going to get assaulted with messages. Lemmy’s a bit of a hive mind so just know you’re not unreasonable for wanting a space where discussion can be had without bad faith. Also a conservative by the way. I’m really much more moderate, but no one here would classify me as that since the scope is shifted
Right - the US overton window is dramatically shifted to the right, and the discourse on here does not accept that as a given but rather as a subject of critical analysis.