I'm just perplexed how kids are still religious in 2024 with vast amount of free information out there. I thought this cult bullshit was about to end with my generation when we got free, unrestricted information exchange invented.
I guess you can't fix irrationality with rationality huh
From my perspective its because people won't change their beliefs unless they stop benefiting the believer. For people who live in a religious community, there church's sunday social event is enjoyable, there friends are all religious, there denomination provides a entire moral framework and worldview they don't even need to think about. Confirmation bias plays a major role in preventing alternate thought to block out other worldviews.
Only when someone does not gain much benefit from there religion or has a important part of there religion proven wrong, can they process alternative ideologies and either switch to a more useful denomination or stop believing entirely.
Yep I have a friend who joined a church after not going to one for years because of the social aspects of it. Lots of people their age to relate to.
We just need better secular groups to join with those benefits that aren't tied to religion. It's one of the reasons I'm always apprehensive about volunteering because I don't want the connection to religion. I know it doesn't matter my intent for those who benefit/what benefits from the volunteering, but it affects my long term commitment to the cause.
Its a shame as well because many of the old social places such as rotary club and the masonic lodges have died out, and the new "third places" are online and/or expensive to access (vrchat comes to mind). Its no wonder so many people use social media these days.
The funny thing is that those words somehow have actual meaning. Metaphysics is the philosophy of existance. I believe the "true" metaphysics he refers to is the fact that it is unknowable if anything other then you exists, because there is no guarantee you are not a bozmian brain or living in a simulation along other things.
This ability combined with rationality can allow you to adapt to changes in your perception of reality, while other frameworks can't (for example there are still people who don't believe in evolution because there interpretation of god is dependent on god creating all species at the start)
I put it in quotes because truth in this context is likely not binary. Here, "true" as in something that can be researched and argumented for rather than something that requires pure faith.
Agreed, though for most believing in irrational things is "fine" (in that it doesn't harm them) until someone shows up to take advantage of it (I'm guessing at least one person is using ai to make it look like they can perform holy miracles on Facebook).
Exactly, its fine until it isn't. Unfortunately most people don't seem to realize just because there beliefs work in the present doesn't mean they will continue to be beneficial in the future (e.g. a christian being recruited to work for free at the pastors business because "it is gods will")
but internet does all that too. Especially more immersive social media like Youtube or podcasts. I'm generally very optimistic but the progress of our information network as someone who lived through it turned out much weaker than we thought it'd be. Maybe that human exposure of college is much more powerful thant basically infinite knowledge at your fingertips.
That's taking it too far, in my opinion. I realize it's supremely unpopular to be a person of faith nowadays, especially online, but you can't say that anyone with faith is stupid and it's all bullshit as a blanket statement. You don't know what happens after we die, and neither do I. I can't prove that God definitely exists and I'll probably never convince you of it, but by the same token, you can't prove that God doesn't exist.
Where we diverge is I think it's okay that you believe that. And yes, of course you can point out the shitty people that use religion to persecute and restrict others' rights, to punish, and worse. Many people do this, but they are still the vocal minority we hear about. And it's not like there haven't been terrible atheists/agnostics who have done awful things not motivated by religion...
Me, personally, I also won't attend any church that tries to be political or tell its members how to vote. I am a Christian, but I try to model my religious activity on the Sikhs: quiet, respectful, loving outreach to improve the world. So I can acknowledge the problems, but no, I don't think all religion is bad nor every person of faith stupid...
They didn't say stupid, you did. They said irrational, which it is. You're right no one can prove that there is no afterlife, but believing in something that there is no evidence for is the definition of irrational. That doesn't mean I'm saying you're stupid, I'm just saying that it's irrational. No need to get offended, that's just what words mean.
And remember that it's not an insult. Even a lot of science depends on taking an irrational position to discover things. Doing irrational things in life can sometimes be way more rewarding than doing rational things.
Trying to explain to someone that their take is not evidence-based though... most jump to the conclusion that you're saying they're wrong.
It's not the belief that makes you "stupid" is the irrationality of the whole package. If you're looking for metaphysics answers - we got them. People tried to figure out this stuff since the beginning of time with rationality and logic and even experiments rather than blind faith to words they never even heard personally. That's the difference.
I don't discriminate against the religious but it's really easy to argue that reglious approach is taking the easy approach to metaphysics and it's something important to consider here.
Inoculating believers against rational counter-arguments is a powerful tool. Do it right, and the vast amount of information at their fingertips might seem like the whole secular world is conspiring against them.
My friend got sucked into it because of a girl. His parents weren't religious. I don't think he had gone to church more than twice in his life by high school, and he, just like the rest of us, trash talked our school's requirements to have a 'chapel' hour once a week. He was as blasé as they come about religion, perhaps an agnostic in the christian hemisphere at best, but when he started dating a christian girl, he went to church with her, made friends with her friends at church, etc. Now 15 years later he's indoctrinating his kids with her, and a deacon at his church. The power of social influence is enormous. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to break free, or even just consider information that is contradictory, if you have the combination of early influence and the later social influence from family, friends, and the wider social circle that is part and parcel of a church.
I'm a Zoomer, and one of my best friends is very religious precisely because of the internet. He reads the Bible online a lot, and is in a bunch of Christian Discord servers, and often reads up theology. To be fair, he is very progressive on pretty much all issues except birth control, he isn't a blind authority-obeyer, and is totally fine with me being agnostic.
Religions are cults that have grown bigger than normal cult size. Just because a religion isn't a Western religion, doesn't mean it's any better than a big cult
Nah they're still cults. People have this morphed view that religion is not a cult when it is by the very definition of it:
cult n: followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
Not to say that cults can't be net good in some form but once they grow past local community I think it's just impossible to not lose the mission to bad actors.
I prefer this view. Limiting the definition of cults to "small" or "based around a person" is missing the point that all religions are self-preserving in-groups that offer "truths" that will limit your worldview by excluding others, and practices that differentiate followers behaviorally.
But also beliefs can be useful. For example, the idea of an afterlife or reincarnation can help reduce the fear of death. The belief of forgiveness for sins, can offer redemption. That random events have meaning. That we are not alone when we are alone. All cognitively useful and therapeutic.
Opposing beliefs can be held at the same time. I can know that probabilistically, or based on personal experience, or empirical evidence, that death is either an ending or an unknowable, and still choose to believe in reincarnation because it does give more meaning to my actions and reduce fear of death.
And cult practices are often as good for the individual as the beliefs. Having community and regular social interaction is critical to human health. Conducting rituals and ceremonies give structure, meaning and comfort to the parts of our days and lives. Praying and meditating. Charity and service and on and on. These are all useful, healthy to the individual and to society.
When we can learn to adopt these things without closing our minds to other worldviews and possibilities, without in-group fear and defensiveness, without superiority and proselytization we'll be in a better world that's still full of cults
I disagree that irrational beliefs can be net good. Belief in the afterlife isn't the only way to make peace with death, but the normalization of magical thinking makes people easier to deceive and more likely to try alternative-solutions (as opposed to vaccination or chemotherapy).
I understand your point, but I think that magical and mythical thinking are fully part of how our minds evolved and still work, and if we fully develop our faculties of rationalization, almost everyone still thinks magically. Think about ideas like luck, or a fear of something improbable, or most of our expectations in life. Or why many masters of logic still believe in mythical beings and afterlives.
If you talk to someone from an animistic culture, they don't need to question or have a structure of reasoning in place to explain why the waterfall has a spirit. It just does, it always has and it's obvious. However, if a person who lives in a wealthy country today, had public education and believes that vaccines are dangerous. They will believe it rationally, not irrationally, and have a slew of rationalizations for the belief. These are two types of magical thinking, but the former has a magical worldview and the latter does not.
Rationality is weak against many types of thinking and motivation, and there are many more steps in the maturation of a mind. I do personally agree that a solid foundation in rational thinking should underlie whatever beliefs, morals, ethics, and insights a person adopts. But it is also highly likely that in my examples the former person is healthier and happier than the latter person, and both could be just as gullible.
The name of a single character from their religious stories tells me nothing about their behavior
She's a god, represents time, change, power, creation, preservation, destruction...she's a mother figure... You haven't given me any useful information. Maybe give a link or something with information about her relevance to cult behavior?
Imo cults have more to do with in-groups and out-groups and their relation in your mental space.
If your in-group is worth more to you than the total sum of all out-groups; you are in a cult.
Humanity is one race, subdividing it and labelling all the chunks is where we went wrong. The fact we have a word to describe this outcome shows we are pretty far down this tube.
If you're reading this and think to yourself "surely this person is misled, they're not a part of (insert religion) so wouldn't know anything about what they say" congratulations, you're right (and also in a cult).
Pure propaganda. Kids are more than happy to follow behind their older peers and always have been.
It's "rebellion" if the kids literally anything at all. Speak up? Question anything? Show any kind of agency? Mimic what your elders are doing? You're out of control.
The hate and negativity is such a big part of it. It’s kind of the foundation, really. It sounds simple, but it is the main thing I had to train out of my brain while figuring out wtf I want out of life and how to enjoy the journey.
If I’m hanging out with family still stuck in that mindset and discussing an acquaintance? You bet I’m going to hear what race they are (if not white, which is the default human in their minds), how big of a house they have, how much money they make, and of course how stupid they are. Nothing of substance.
All that negativity, paranoia, and anger makes it much easier to get the conservative base to not spend time thinking about the suffering of others, and instead think about how much stuff they’ve acquired and how the “other” people want to steal it.
It’s a strange position for me to be in, personally. I can see how somebody would stay immersed in that shitty mindset for life without exposure to the wider world, because I know the feeling of living in that mindset (let’s call it high school). However, I also have eyes and ears and access to the internet, and I think all available information should be considered even if reality has a liberal bias.
Well, if you question it, you are a bad person and going to hell. It's not that God doesn't love you, but you are forcing God to send you to hell because you are choosing to question.
Yes I've been paying attention, however it remains baffling to me as I see curiosity as essential as breathing or eating, so perhaps the question may be better asked as, how is inhibiting curiosity not recognized as a form of abuse?
This is my exact story to a "t". I grew up in a heavily conservative household, joined the military as a conservative, and 15 years later I'm pretty fucking blue.
I think it's a combination of a few things that does it to us more often than not:
1 - Exposure to people from all walks of life/escaping your "bubble"
2 - Access to tax payer funded social programs that the rest of America desperately fucking needs and going "Why can't taxes do this for EVERYONE!?"
3 - If you've been deployed to certain sections of the world, you see first-hand what unfettered religious extremism can potentially do to a country.
I'm happy to say, that at least for the Air Force, I've run into far, far more Active Duty Dems/Libs than I have any Repubs. Now, when the retired veteran GS employees come in, it's a completely different story. My whole circle save one is fairly left-leaning, and the one who isnt is...fucking weird/all over the place on his stances.
In my experience 20 years ago, it was mostly split between people who didn't care or at least didn't talk politics (the majority) and people who were very loud in thinking a Democrat would reduce the pay of enlisted service members.
30% of your time being red. 30% of your time coming to your senses. 40% of your time trending towards borderline radical blue.
There is your 60/40 split.
Anecdotally, this was somewhat my experience as well, except my parents didn’t talk politics much and they certainly didn’t show the extreme hate towards the left that fox and rush have since incited. I went more from voting on surface level attributes (speaking ability, apparent warmth, etc) and social pressure, to actually [eventually] looking at policy. I was a registered independent when I joined, but I didn’t know enough about actual politics to understand the details of what I was voting for. I.e., I was going with the flow. It has the same effect at the ballot box though.
I think a lot of your political beliefs start with your parents and people around you, but then are shaped by what happens to you. If you get hit with the hard reality of life in some way (debt, health, etc) it tends to push you to be more progressive/empathetic toward others because you see just how truly cold and cruel the bottom of our society gets treated. If you have coasted through life and have parents and friends supporting you financially and we're lucky enough to get a good job and have relatively good health and such then you may not know the horrors of what can happen if you hit a few rough patches.
Similarly in military service, if you get injured and now have to go to the VA and fight to receive the most basic of medical care you were promised and denied it tends to push you left/progressive because you want things to be better. If you are still in the service or left it relatively undamaged then you could easily still see things from a conservative and right leaning perspective.
When you or people close to you get (denied medical care, denied housing, denied work, pushed into poverty and/or homelessness, used by the system and then discarded like trash) you tend to see things more progressive and want to provide some basic levels of support and humanity and empathy toward others as opposed to exploiting them for profit.
For men, a lot of it has to do with personal frustration and several "sources" or "influencers" pointing to communism, cultural marxism, feminism, etc, as the culprits of everything bad going on. Attacking a scapegoat you've been led to believe is "the reason" you can't get a job or a girlfriend is easy and emotionally satisfying.
Thinking, rationalizing and realizing how and why shit's fucked up, down, left and right doesn't fill you with good vibes.
If you want an honest answer, it's that young boys are feeling left behind, and in many ways they are right. This is a longer video (~30min) but it seems in line with much of what I've been seeing, that the boys are not alright.
Essentially, as any system begins to give equality to all, it will appear as a loss for those who used to solely benefit from it. That said this is still something to take seriously.
The gender gap is reversed in several areas: in education girls do better than boys. There are more women in university than men. Real wealth of women has been rising while in many demographics (especially poor young men of color) wealth has been decreasing. This is not a 0 sum game, so these are real concerns. 75% of suicides are men, and in their notes it is common to see words like "useless" "unwanted" and "worthless". They feel that the world is leaving them behind.
This trend is not happening to those in the elite class- that is still very much male dominated, however for many poor men without college degrees, their lives are no longer looking like what they were raised to expect. That same demographic is who you are more likely to see at a trump rally.
This is fertile ground for people like Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate to bring these young men into their world view that women are taking away their futures.
This is where I would say men who are in places of being role models (teachers, mentors, fathers, coaches, pastors, etc...) need to come in and show that there is a new reality for men and that it's not only okay, it's better. Being a stay at home dad can be freeing as you may be able to pursue other interests. Showing what leadership is is important, but also showing how to work as a team and under the leadership of a woman is important too and can be fulfilling.
I'm an educator, and one thing I think about is that I want to teach the girls that men are not to be feared, and to teach the boys not to be men to be afraid of. There is a better future ahead, but only if we take action and support the next generation of boys as well as girls. Without this support, we are handing a large portion of disaffected youth to a toxic mindset that will have horrible consequences.
Oddly enough, I could see one of these boys looking at this post and thinking "the left doesn't care about me, so why would I care about them?"
As someone who lost a friend to that rabbit hole, I really think we should put that far right conspiracy theory between quotation marks when named alongside things that actually exist. Communism and feminism are real (even if they are perceived as demonic by these people, they still at least exist). "Cultural marxism" doesn't even have entity, it's just bullshit entirely made up by the usual grifters
For me it has to do with having evaluated various political philosophies according to my personal experience and chosen the one that best matches what I think is right.
To be fair if you’re anything past Boomer, at this point you should be too embarrassed to vote for any GOP candidate. When the party decided to support Trump—a guy with proven sexual assault charges, pending fraud charges, pending classified document charges, a penchant for insurrection that he happily acknowledges, and more and more video surfacing of him unable to be coherent, hopefully most everyone with any connection to reality has realized it’s time to kick him and the GOP to the curb.
The Boomers should be mortified. Their parents were the one who sacrificed their young adulthood to eliminate the Nazis 80 years ago. They're spitting on their parents' graves by supporting Trump.
The problem is, boomers are the most selfish generation. The other name for their generation is the Me Generation, because after the war, after the depression, their parents had done all the hard work, been through all the hard times, and started to get money and financial security and so they gave their children everything they wanted creating the absolute selfishness we see today. They don't care a lick about their parents sacrifices because they had everything they ever wanted and for them it's all about "me, me , me!"
A lot of our current brand of conservatism appeals to people's notion of unfairness. People taking things from them. They have been told over and over that liberals are lazy and want to take things from them.
Remember that these are young people who don't have a lot of experiences in adult life, but have experienced basic, uncomplicated unfairness. Fighting against that simple, unnuanced unfairness appeals to them.
Conservatives tell you a whole list of people who are supposedly stealing from you to distract from the fact that they're currently picking your pocket.
Indoctrination, propaganda, alt-right playbook recruitment through targeting the disaffected... these aren't young people who've turned to conservatism, they've been actively targeted by right wing factions in order to bolster their position.
Edit: Oh, and also Reagan era neo-liberals are the fucking worst and when they shit on progressives and their ideas, they basically push away people who would otherwise be politically left leaning.
Pretty sure this is a bubble view point, look at how many right wing populists are successful in the world right now. Conservatives are not a small group and I'm sure their views are considered good and normal in many spaces.
But it's easy to say "it's the corrupt society that is wrong" or that social media is full of bots or commies etc, it can serve to validate their views. Like the hero in a dystopian story, they are one of the few that see the truth.
It's valid, what you said. But the internet can also be a huuuuge asshole. I'm not excusing the awfulness that is conservativism (fucking ew furiously washes hands) by any measure; self-reflection is a requirement of a sentient human and is absent in some animals. However, one does see how an opinion from an asshole so very vast might get discounted, folded-in with the cheese of selection bias, as it were.
We’ll get the conservatives out of government soon
You'll still be stuck with Keir "I agree with my friends across the aisle but wish they'd go further" Starmer. Labor was completely hollowed out after Corbyn. It's just careerist flaks and corporate shills, with anyone who defies the leadership getting punted off the ticket.
Who could have guessed that if the party systematically annihilates anyone and anything who dislikes the status quo you'd be left with Tories with red paint.
Corbyn was the worst thing that could've happened to Labour. The man just did not understand the role of Party Leader and could not prioritise party or country over his own nostaligia-tinged ideological pet causes
Using both British Election Study and Party Members Project data, we explain the surge by focussing on the attitudinal, ideological and demographic characteristics of the members themselves. Findings suggest that, along with support for the leader and yearning for a new style of politics, feelings of relative deprivation played a significant part: many ‘left-behind’ voters (some well-educated, some less so) joined Labour for the first time when a candidate with a clearly radical profile appeared on the leadership ballot. Anti-capitalist and left-wing values mattered too, particularly for those former members who decided to return to the party.
If you're in the U.S or a lot of places, both sides of the government are conservative. There is literally no left option. Not sure what Labour is like in the UK.
The current leader has been whipping his MPs to vote with conservative policy and is generally in agreement with them. They've been some of the weakest opposition I've ever seen. The Scottish national party (SNP) has been the only genuine left wing party with any significant presence in Westminster. The Labour party leader recently threatened the speaker (who is labour but is supposed to be impartial) to stop a SNP debate day when they wanted to pass a recognition of genocide in Gaza.
They're selling point is they are more competent and less cruel than the conservatives. The keep on dropping their more progressive policies. Recently they've dropped their reform of the house of lords, an unelected chamber that currently places religious leaders and Russians with KGB ties in unaccountable legislative roles for life.
Sounds like they've been bought then. Usually when a party starts throwing their weight around for morality policy (which shouldn't be a thing in politics anyway) it means rich people are paying the bills.
Labour in Scotland kicked out their previous leader because the party donors didn't like him. The farther of the current labour leader also donates significant amount of money to Labour, and basically bought his sons seat as an MSP in the first place.
That's the thing with a republic - those who vote Democrat in NYC or LA have to compromise with those who vote Democrat in other places like Virginia and Oregon, for the type of median representation they get in federal government.
Democrats used to have the South they could count on, and eventually the nation got FDR for four consecutive terms and the New Deal.
Then the LBJ administration - from Texas, of all places - and Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, and Democrats lost that electoral advantage they had in the South.
All the ingrained racist simpletons in society shifted towards the other side - "That republican fellow might screw me over, but at least he's one of ours, a good patriotic christian (read: white) American that talks to me in MY (racist dog whistle) language!"
What so many people don't seem to ever get is that permanent changes in Washington work through inertia and take voting in every election, because the safer any party can feel in office, the bolder they can afford to be in that slow-moving, change-resistant place.
Democrats did it before because they had the South they could rely on, including Texas. Now Democrats don't have the South.
But it still happened, and the opportunity for it to happen could only have been in the Democrat Party. Try and brush it off as much as you try, it's still an undeniable event, fact and history, and proof that both parties are NOT the same.
By the same token of your argument, LBJ and Congress passing the Civil Rights Act was a fluke, because it only happened once? They knowingly sacrificed the entire electoral south for several generations and to this day, to do the right thing. "Yeah, but it doesn't count." Oh give me a break.
Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, there are shining examples of Democrats attempting to do the right thing in a complex and changing, overwhelming world, while with republicans at the same time it has been all about endless avarice and appetite, with the snarl of bigotry facing in all directions.
That wasn't my point. My point is that the parties switched, or more accurately The Republicans went from being left of Democrats to the far right sometime between 1912 and 1945-1960
This is a really big part of the problem, I think. Politicians on the "left" tend to be actually just more moderate right wingers, or unable to accomplish much of anything meaningful.
It's much the same in Canada too, our Liberal party is supposed to be the mainstream "left" option but they're just doing moderate right politics with pride flags.
Then there's the NDP which actually has some leftist elements, and I'm grateful to have a meaningful 3rd party, but they've still never formed government at the federal level.
And we've ingested so much cold war propaganda that if you just say "socialist" people start getting freaked out.
As progressive values become more mainstream being an edgy conservative becomes a form of counter culture.
This shows in those god awful conservative memes people make that say shit like "Im not like other girls, I dress modestly, dont drink or do drugs and the only man I get on my knees for is JEsus" type shit. or the male equivalent where they talk about how theyre the only real man left in a world where people drink soy lattes and dont beat their kids.
i'm 24 and a proud conservative: i want to replace all highways with railways and interurban tramways, return to having small dense cities surrounded by lively rurality, dissolve large corporations and replace them with small local businesses, and bring back that thing where we went "hey the slightly insane guy who never works is living in a shack that barely qualifies as shelter, let's build him a new cottage so he has a proper place to live, because everyone has a fundamental right to housing no matter what."
The poster would like to revert to a time of more progressive economic policies and conserve it. 😏😆 In the US, it’s a funny dichotomy that the progressives are fighting for things which were lost.
The US had everything the poster points out at one time. It’s just been dismantled over the years in the name of progress.
If conservatives actually governed the way they should they’d be easier to vote for. Small government, cutting spending, actually legislating to support rural Americans with things like good education and affordable health care…etc.
That's the point. The Republican party isn't conservative at all, but radical. They've abandoned most conservative political positions, including orthodox fiscal management, and exchanged conservative values for a constructed collection of 'traditional values', which are derived less from tradition than from the endless grievances that have replaced policy as their political program
Is there evidence that conservatism was ever that anywhere though? Because those are the things that current conservatives SAY but never what they DO. Is there any evidence of conservatives actually doing those things because as far as I have seen it has always been lip service, sleight of hand. I'm open to examples to change my mind.
You're correct. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the most progressive Presidents in history, was on the Republican ticket against Taft in 1912. I cannot fathom having had the ability to vote for Teddy, and voting for either Taft or Wilson.
Western conservative parties were mostly fiscally responsible until the 80s, and outside the USA they've tended to come around on many civil liberties. Women's suffrage was passed with cross-aisle support in many European countries, for instance, as was same-sex marriage. Even today, the conservative parties in Northern Europe mostly stand for fiscal responsibility. In general, conservative parties in systems with Proportional representation seem to be much less exposed to capture by the far right.
I'll almost certainly never vote conservative, but given how many do, I'm thankful to be living in a country where that means budget cuts and reduced income tax for the upper middle, and not the stripping away of rights and liberties and deficit-funded tax cuts for the rich.
Conservatism protects power where it exists now. You fundamentally can't do that and be honest about it and maintain some form legitimacy in an ostensibly democratic system.
If you say "we love billionaires because they give us fat cheques, also we're cutting your services because the billionaires don't like taxes" you don't get votes. So you have to drop one of those three things, and of course "be honest about it" is the easiest one to go without.
Lmao my mans rode the political merry-go-round and came out the opposite side full on Marxist. Welcome to the club brother, we got dope ass flags and mad pamphlets.
i'd call myself anarchist syndicalist :P, this was a joke about how conservatives aren't actually conservative, just filled with hatred and xenophobia.
You just described all the things that conservatives have worked hard to stop from happening every time they've been in power. The only political ideology that actively wants to house the homeless, build robust public transport, moves to small towns and boycotts large corporations to support small business are deep to far left.
The Japanese conservatives built one of the world's best public transport systems, constructed entire towns for workers and are now pushing people to move to small towns. (They're still owned by the corporations, though.)
what you just said means you are not a conservative...
a conservative would want to keep the highway system the way it is, take more money away from its maintenance bugdet if anything.
a conservative would never want to dissolve large businesses.
a conservative would not give a crap about what you're using as shelter, and certainly wouldn't believe that access to housing is a basic human right.
You're a lot more left than you realize. you might even be socialist. do you believe that the workers of a company should be given the profit that company enjoys, or should it all go to the shirts at the top? Do you believe that the working class should never be disarmed, and any attempt to disarm the working class should be disrupted?
yes, very aware of that, as i am in fact an anarchist syndicalist.
the point is to make fun of how modern conservatives have nothing they want to conserve other than their racial purity and personal wealth.
i would very much like to reclaim the term conservative for opinions that are ACTUALLY conservative, such as ending the suburban experiment and the neoliberal pursuit of wealth above actual happiness and social stability.
Your motivation in thinking these changes are the right ones is not conservative, I imagine. You probably think about the future, how things could be better, not based on some traditional values or because you remember how things were vaguely "better" in the past.
it's almost amazing how many people had the point sail over their heads, i'm very much progressive :)
i look at the past, see it was in many ways pretty good, look at the present, see it's pretty fucking miserable in those same ways, and then the obvious conclusion is that maybe people in the past did some stuff right, such as enjoying the sociopolitical benefits of public transport and workers' rights.
then i see people call themselves conservative and just advocate making things WORSE, and i'm filled with an intense desire to wallop them with wet day-old fish.
You said you are a proud conservative and then proceeded to list off things that are completely antithetical to it. I am so confused. Everything you said is progressive, socialist, leftist, not at all conservative. Conservatives want things to stay as they are, to not progress, to not change. I.E. This system is working (for me) so let's keep it. Progressives say things aren't working (for everyone) so we should attempt to make it better for us all instead of a few people having everything and most people having little.
I mean this in the kindest most supportive way possible. You may want to do some introspection and comparisons with what you want to happen and what the political parties are pushing for. You may find you are anything but conservative or you may find you actually are conservative and you really don't want those things you said.
and bring back that thing where we went “hey the slightly insane guy who never works is living in a shack that barely qualifies as shelter, let’s build him a new cottage so he has a proper place to live, because everyone has a fundamental right to housing no matter what.”
This never existed. Not since capitalism at least.
that was specifically a modified example from nearby me, where the local parish decided to build a new house for a person who was struggling to get by.
Liberals would be against "government interventionism" such as getting rid of large corporations or taxing to then spend that money on public transportion.
Modern liberalism is not at all aligned with the Left on the Economic space, only on the non-Economic, personal freedoms, one.
Granted, big picture thinking would eventually end up concluding that differentiated treatment depending on wealth together with wealth inequality in overall reduces individual freedom (a few are freer to do what they want but the many are less free) which would end up aligning at least some liberals with leftwing thinking, but sadly that's not what liberalism is nowadays.
Sorry I'm from Canada and we have an actual political system still and not a charade. Trust me everywhere outside of the U.S liberal still means progressive. Your 'liberal' centrism is unique. We call that conservative.
I'm in Europe and I'm making my comment mainly based on my experience with the British Liberals (both the overt ones - the Liberal Party - and the less overt ones - New Labour) as I lived in Britain for over a decade and was even involved in politics there.
Next to the traditional Left in most of Europe, Liberalism isn't at all Left: it's just Neoliberalism with an Pro-Equality But Not The Economic Kind coat of paint to make it seem left of center.
You do get elements of liberalism within leftwing parties in Europe, but they're not liberal in the full sense, probably because of the contradiction I pointed out in my first post (that on the economic side, complete freedom for money results in quality of life going down for most people, which goes directly against the leftwing principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number").
It's not by chance that Liberals constantly talk about what's good for businesses or for the Economy in absolute terms (if it's good for those, then it's overall good) whilst not everything that's "good for businesses or the Economy" is actually good for people: businesses and the Economy are at most a means to an end for democratic lefties (in that they can make life better for most people and must be regulated to stop them from doing the opposite), not an end in itself.
If the definition of the word was that clear we would both know and agree on exactly were "liberalism" starts and were it ends, and wouldn't be having this discussion, plus you wouldn't have made the distinction in your previous post between the meaning of liberal in the US and "everywhere outside the US".
In the absence of such perfect and worldwide agreed definition for "liberalism", the best we can use is real-world examples of those who proclaim themselves as "liberals" (and in the case of New Labour, it's not even in the party name) to show the common understanding of the word in various countries and the ones I listed on my last post are my real world examples which directly contradict your statement that "everywhere outside the US liberal still means progressive".
My notion of "liberalism" is one anchored on my experience of living and voting in 4 different countries of Europe so while I can't prove to you that "that's what's understood as liberalism all over the World" (and, frankly, I doubt it is), it certainly provides a Western and Southern Europe-centric first person observation of what is said to be "liberalism" over here, a reasonably large area of the world which most definitelly counts as "outside the US".
What are you expecting to have them send you? A link to a paper proving that having empathy for fellow humans means you are not conservative?
Bro. Just like, think about it.
OPs talking points align nearly perfectly with normal progressive talking points.
Increase high density housing.
Increase public transport.
Public safety net (housing for the homeless).
Redistribution of wealth.
What it likely boils down to are the two conservative talking points they have left, guns and reproductive rights.
If OP truly feels that abortion is murder and believes in his heart that he has the right to dictate his own personal beliefs on others, and / or has fallen for the lie that the left is going to take their guns away (they won't), they will vote Republican despite everything else pointing to the logical choice being a progressive Democrat.
Edit:
I feel I need to mention that just because I (a man) personally cannot imagine a scenario in which I would need to get an abortion (because I lack ovaries), and my current life situation is such that I don't forsee my partner requiring one, I still will vote to protect women's right to bodily autonomy. I strongly believe that I have no right to even participate in the discussion. My opinion is literally worthless, and I don't have to live with the consequences of my vote.
That being said, I take the position of provide access to abortion but also provide services to women to try and decrease the need for abortion. I also am in favor of providing free healthcare to pregnant women and children of families in need of it, and I believe childcare should be subsidized.
It's funny because technically abortion shouldn't even be a right vs left issue (has nothing to do with economic policy). It's just like that in the U.S because of the ridiculousness of their binary political system.
Both "sides" are so incredibly close in Economic terms that all that's left for them to differentiate themselves is the Moral plan, hence you end up with ridiculous shit like criminalizing abortion or the whole trans rights fight.
It's all cover to how both "sides" don't really care about managing the country for the good of the many: they're two cheeks of the same arse hence when it comes to overall quality of life you get the same shit.
Ah yes, the same shit. That's why Republican-majority states are roughly the same as Democrat majorities on education, social services, household income, life expectancy, infant mortality... oh they aren't? Yes because "both sides" enlightened centrism is a bullshit position.
Only somebody ignorant of the political culture outside the US would call the middle-point between Democrats and Republicans "centrism".
By global standards, that shit would be "Full-on Right", specifically on Economics were it's Hard Neoliberalism (privatise everything including natural monopolies and refrain from regulating anything, to the point that, to pick quite a poignant example, the way in which the US regulates the safety of new chemicals for environments with direct human exposure - such as home use - is "allow by default until proven dangerous", which is the exact opposite of what's done in Europe were that stuff has to be proven safe first and only after that it's allowed).
Just because your further to the Right party could be best described as "Ultra-nationalist, ultra-religious, full-on racist, ultra-neoliberal, complete total nutcase Far-Right" doesn't mean that the party not quite as much to the Right is left-of-center, especial on economic (and hence, quality of life) matters.
The number of elected Democrats that are left-of-center can probably be counted using the fingers of a hand.
also, we should take gun rights back from them. their lord and savior Ronald Reagan was the one who introduced gun control when the black panthers started open carrying.
to be abundantly clear, i'm probably more of a radical socialist than most of y'all, and that post was mostly made in jest but also i wish we'd see some sensible people reclaim the term "conservative" for opinions that are actually conservative and not just hateful.
used to be that conservatives wanted to actually conserve stuff, like nature and the welfare of their society.
I don't think conservative has ever meant the environment. It's about conserving the status quo. At this point the party should be renamed to regressives.
I'm not sure how to explain that social security and public housing and public transport and corporate regulation are socialist policies lol. I knew this even before high school. Not decrying you because I agree with everything guy above you said, but you guys are certainly hanging with the wrong crowd.
social security and public housing and public transport and corporate regulation are socialist policies
They are not. They are common sense policies supported, at least on paper, by both left and right in most parts of the world. The first modern welfare state was created by Otto von Bismarck, not exactly a socialist.
Also, socialism in the traditional sense implies some form of public ownership at least of key industries and large companies, which would render corporate regulation a moot point.
He did that with the explicit goal of undermining his socialist opponents (so people wouildn't have a reason to support them)
In regards to your second point, lol no. That would be communism. I'm glad that you think left wing policies are common sense though? Most of us heavily agree which is why seeing the proliferation of conservatism is disheartening.
He did that with the explicit goal of undermining his socialist opponents
I know, which is why I said 'at least ln paper'. But a welfare state improves the productivity of workers and soldiers, and Prussia (and Bismarck in particular) did enact many other reforms with this objective.
I understand communism to be worker control of (all) the means of production. Socialism is of course much more broad, but in general it would involve public / state ownership of at least key industries and any companies that are 'too big to fail'.
Bruh. That statement by Marx is an ideal, a metaphor for revolution. No country's populace has ever controlled the means of production. In fact if you want to take that literally, capitalist societies have for more control over industry than socialist ones do. Modern communism is generally seen as where the government controls the distribution of property. In this sense not even Russia is communist anymore.
And I wouldn't conflate them because most socialists would be pretty offended to be identified as communist. The average socialist likes Denmark and Sweden. Not Cuba or something.
seems so, though to be fair it's only a half-joke as i do feel people could totally reclaim the conservative moniker for something actually good and actually conservative.
I like to define the modern Conservatives(tm) with a capital C. It's a brand, but as you point out, they are reactionaries. Modern conservatives are Democrats trying to keep all the progress made over the last 70 years. I've had to explain this to some boomers who used to be progressive, but don't seem to understand that they are no longer on the progressive side of politics.
It's hard to describe personal politics prior to 2000. It was easy to be a sane conservative in the 80s. There was obviously shady shit going on behind the scenes. But outwardly the conservative movement mostly espoused mainstream thought at the time.
I see that, but it's hard not to connect the dots between Reagan and Trump; what people voted for then has a direect relationship with what they're voting for now, and it wasn't rare to hear alarm bells being raised back then either. These progressions are not chaotic, unpredictable, or sudden, so it's weird to hear people talk about how normal conservatives used to be just thirty years ago. The window was not so skewed then maybe, but it was being pulled right even then.
The Republican Party in the 1980s was just starting to get taken over by Evangelicals and the NRA, and was firmly behind the Southern Strategy. It was definitely getting pulled right at that time.
It just seems the country was overall more conservative back then and they had a stranglehold on America. Their "boTh SiDeS" "Good Christian" antics were dominant. Republicans began shitting the bed as the direction of the nation diverged and they were no longer obviously in control. Then the veil got lifted on the power of money in politics and the rat lashed out from the corner.
Yeah, I was also an 80s conservative, but I couldn’t tell you how much I moved left vs how much the right pulled ever farther right.
Or maybe it was naïveté: for example it felt like “family values” meant actually valuing family, that fiscal conservativism was not spoken ironically, and science and education were worth investing in. Environmentalism seemed perfectly compatible with being an 80s conservative
But more importantly in the 80s it was ok to work with or even vote for someone in the other party. It was an attitude how things should be run, rather than a lifestyle or an us vs them. Maybe that’s just me though
I am always surprised at how little credit is given to the relentless onslaught of radical fascist propaganda over airwaves, in MSM, and online...all of which do their damnedest to reach young people, teens, and even primary school kids. Very few people have any idea how powerful AM radio and Salem Media Group are. These are all the result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
None of you want to face the fact that alt-right campaigns like Gamergate and Qanon has brought a fucktonne of youth over to the cuntservative side. It's going to be a real problem now that they are old enough to vote.
Idk who you think you are or what you thought I meant and I don't really care, but you're kind of an asshole for literally no reason. I suggest you practice what you preach and throw in a bit of therapy.
If everyone around you seems like a problem, it's most likely you. I can already tell. Now, earnestly, please go get therapy. Nobody wants to join your pity party or provide anger management for free on a public forum.
And using therapy as a barb
Ah, but using lack of education as a barb is ok. And so is using your medical condition as an excuse.
you know literally nothing about me
Hilarious, seeing your condescending replies.
Edit: Brb, redirecting my bot army that I didn't know I had to this thread 😂🤣
It's funny but that little pithy soundbite doesn't actually work in real life. If it did then all the lemmy users complaining about abusive workplaces are the problem.
Ah, but using lack of education as a barb is ok
That wasn't a barb, you literally responded with a one word misspelled reply for a sentence fragment. I legit thought you were semi-literate.
Hilarious, seeing your condescending replies.
What assumptions have I made about you that aren't source in your ridiculously useless comments? I'd love to see you post links.
Nah, I see it clearly: you're assuming shit about people you don't know based on a single-word reply, you have delusions of vote manipulation or sockpuppeting on an active thread, you're using your medical condition to excuse your shitty behavior, and you're here pretending that you have the high moral ground on anything or higher mental sharpness after all this... I'm quite sure the problem is you.
What assumptions have I made about you
Better question is, what assumptions have I made here? 😂
you literally responded with a one word misspelled reply for a sentence fragment
Again, hilarious that that's what you thought happened but I'm the one who needs more education. It's frankly embarrassing.
I blame 2 generations of failed father figures, every public perception of 'manhood' contains toxic elements.
This isn't a new problem either, google China's 'bare branches' problem. We have historical records of unmarriable men forming into bands to rape and pillage since the 1200s.
And every one of them acts the same way as tate and his degenerate edgibois.
I’d argue it’s just one part of the larger “all your negative opinions are not only valid, they are correct and good!” culture that drives so much negative shit in culture & politics.
Indeed, the only reason bad words are censored is to get around autoflags, which is a fucking stupid thing to do to your userbase, particularly because only advertisers, who aren't affected by it, are the only ones that care.
In my friend circles we do refer to the as "cuntservatives", but I'm guessing this person is worried about going viral in the wrong circles from conservatives searching for content with that key term, or maybe they're worried about algorithmic suppression based on key words.
Wash the brain with soap every day, just like their parents & all the "cool" communities they are exposed to. The main goal in life is to protect the few individuals that already have everything from the fate of havening everything but at a bit slower rate. Its like sports, your team is best, the other needs to go to jail.
Decades of "the ends justify the means" gritty antihero's, doing what "needs" to be done.
Honestly its surprising how many people have beliefs they think are evil but just they alone can bear the moral cost to support it. Its why it doesn't matter to some about Trumps crimes against democracy or rapes, they are just making "enlightened" real politic game theory decisions in there heads instead of understanding the value of ethical and honarable institutions.
At least that's part of it. An over value of "accepting a little sin" to get what they want instead of accepting the nuance and boring reality of what it actually takes to build a better world.
I don't believe this. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't.
Trust me, I never thought my parents, or many others from the boomer and gen X generations would end up this conservative. Knowing that a lot of it's from fear mongering and misinformation, I can't say I have faith that millennials won't change later on for the same reasons. We're not immune to either of those, we're just better adjusted to handling how it's currently spread.
If I'm wrong in a few decades I'll be grateful though.
Democratic party might just get more conservative to match, since a lot of the effect is anti Republican, not necessarily that millennials are somehow magically going to stay progressive unlike every generation ever.
Possibly yeah. I mean a lot of the Dems currently are rather moderate, which really shows the extremes the Republican party as a whole has slipped to on the scale.
I'm not entirely sure how this would work with our two party system though. Unless the Republican party collapses and reforms then liberal viewpoints would be left without representatives.
There's a bit of the notion of what's progressive and conservative changing with times. You know the adage: old dogs, new tricks.
We millennials will almost certainly have more modern beliefs the generation before us and before that. But I doubt any old generation will match any new generation.
Still I have hope with respect to the rapid loss of interest in establishment religion.
What in my comment implied I use tiktok? I'm merely making an observation of how the platforms with large user bases shape modern language through the conditions those platforms apply to communication.
Eh, sometimes you might want to vent about conservatives, without the kind of person who searches for the word 'conservative' to troll anyone criticising conservatives finding your post.
She's not writing an essay, it's stylistic or for ease of typing, terseness, I read it like someone speaking without thinking and I had to go back to see what you were talking about
I'm disappointed every time I see a potentially good argument ruined with kid-pidgin like 'u' and 'r'. At that point, I feel as if it were written in crayon.
This is so catastrophically problematic on so many levels. "Conservative" or "right" are valid and legitimate political orientations, just like "left" is. Posts like this that suggest that a political view is wrong are just so closed-minded and fundementally intolerant. These always seem to disregard that there is a disagreement because of ideology and always suggest that "the conservatives'" opinion is of any less value than their own. What the heck?
I mean, while I sort of agree with you on one hand, on the other hand I saw conservatives try to overthrow democracy and successfully overturn roe v wade recently so....
Yeah but extremes on either side of the spectrum try to overthrow democracy. We have to fight the extremes but not the whole political orientation.
I just looked up Roe V Wade (I'm not from the US) and it appears that it was recently overturned by a federal court. A court does not make the laws, so overturning an older case means, as fas as I know, correcting the decision on laws that they have to follow, no matter if they like it or not. If you want a law on abortion, you should get the parliament to pass such a law IMO.
Generally, if someone's methdology is unacceptable, that doesn't invalidate their political views and certainly not the whole political orientation.
Please show me an example of extreme Democrats trying to overthrow the US. This just isn't the case and there is no "both sides" on this issue. The current conservative party in the US is not actually a conservative party. It is fear mongering bigotry and authoritarianism. Full stop. So stop acting like anyone is against the standard "progressive vs conservative" debate. We are outside of that normal.
The democrats are by no means an extreme party. Those are not left extremists.
We are outside of that normal.
YOU are outside of that normal. But then, why do you project the disagreement with one party to the "standart progressive vs conservative debate". You can't take one party from one country that you dislike and genelarize that "condervative=bad". That would be like saying "China's social credit system is bad, therefore leftists are bad". No!
By no means do I support the Republican party or their views but claiming conservative to be illegitimate just because your only choice of a conservative party is bad is so strange.
Does the fact that we think even "regular" conservatives have shitty beliefs make you feel better? Do conservatives want to fund public services? Do they want to reduce police funding? Do they want to reduce inequity and tax the rich? Trying to "conserve" the shitty past that we all share is a fucking shit ideology.
Does the fact that we think even "regular" conservatives have shitty beliefs make you feel better?
I could already imagine what you think of their ideology. The problem I have is with labeling a general political orientation as illegitimate.
Do conservatives want to fund public services?
They probably don't want to increase their funds. But yeah, public services exist for a reason. How many funds they should get it a debate to be had.
Do they want to reduce police funding?
Probably not (?), though would you mind explaining what the whole police defunding demands are about? Is it just currently viewed as a waste of money or what?
Do they want to reduce inequity and tax the rich?
They probably dont want to tax the rich more than they currently do, but yeah they would AFAIK still tax them (and tax them more than normal people). Inequality is a moral-based question again. You may find it fair if everyone has the same amount of money, someone else might find it fair that you get more money the more you earn, etc.
Yeah but extremes on either side of the spectrum try to overthrow democracy.
Well you say that but in recent memory only one side actually has tried. I don’t think it’s really fair to “both sides” this when one has and one hasn’t.
Its fair no neither side. Just because right extremists do bad stuff where you live and left extremists don't seem to exist or be as prelevant where you live, that doesn't make the whole political direction (e.g. left-leaning, right-leaning) invalid. That just makes extremists bad. That would be like saying "Staling = bad, therefore every non-condervative = bad".
It's not like "the rights" or "the lefts" have tried to overthrow the government. More like: people whose views are so extremely right/left that they are antidemocratic have tried to overthrow democracy.
Just because right extremists do bad stuff where you live and left extremists don't seem to exist or be as prelevant where you live, that doesn't make the whole political direction
It definitely does. A conservative in the United States is not the same as a conservative in the EU so in the context of one country, it’s entirely accurate. You can’t project a left/right spectrum globally when each country or group of countries have their own delineations on what constitutes “Liberal” or “Conservative”. One country could have a “conservative” ideology that’s considered entirely “liberal” by another country.
It's not like "the rights" or "the lefts" have tried to overthrow the government.
Except they did. “The rights” in the U.S. attempted to overthrow the duly elected president elect and install the opposition into power. It was a comically piss poor attempt, but an attempt it was nonetheless.
One country could have a “conservative” ideology that’s considered entirely “liberal” by another country.
... which is why find these generalized statements on political orientations stupid. At least the girl in the post could have said "Republican" or sth.
Except they did. “The rights” in the U.S. attempted to overthrow the duly elected president
No, it's not "the rights" who did that. It was a group of people from the right side of the spectrum, presumably the more extreme ones who did that. You can't generalize every condervative person into that group.
(Although the fact that it was actually Trump who called for the attack is highly problematic, even more so the fact that he now is again up as a candidate elected by his party).
.. which is why find these generalized statements on political orientations stupid. At least the girl in the post could have said "Republican" or sth.
I’m positive she wasn’t making a generalized statement globally. She’s referencing the Conservative Party in the country she lives in, probably the United States, which is the Republican Party.
No, it's not "the rights" who did that. It was a group of people from the right side of the spectrum, presumably the more extreme ones who did that.
It was the conservatives (The American right) who did that. And while a minority of them were physically there to perpetrate it, they were in fact supported by the majority of conservatives in the country. Several polls have been done about this and while a majority of Americans condemned the attack, the majority of conservatives have defended it.
You’re trying really hard to split hairs, move the goalposts internationally to muddy the argument, and make incorrect assumptions about the demographics involved but that facts remain what they are.
The court does make the laws now because a conservative Congress illegally delayed SCOTUS appointments and rushed others so the conservative president was able to stack it with wildly unqualified conservative justices. Their guy also did an insurrection. 1/3 of the court are appointments from an insurrectionist who tried to bribe a foreign country to smear his political opponent. All conservatives are totally fine with all of that.
What's a SCOTUS appointment if you dont mind me asking?
Seems like a questionable system though, right? Im vaguely familar on how partys in the US can appoint judges for life as soon as others leave...
Isn't this favorable appointing of judges done on both sides, depnding on the governing patty (aka Democrats and Republicans) or what is the scandal about what happened under Trump?
Supreme Court of The United States appointment. Presidents appoint a candidate they like, congress greenlights their ascent to the position.
Oh highly questionable, it's caused a lot of people to rethink the safety of lifetime appointments. But there are avenues to try, someone doesn't have to retire or die, the number of SCOTUS judges can be raised and then you can appoint new judges, but then so can the next party and so on so forth, or at least they tell us that the threat of 'the other side' packing the courts is too much of a danger for their own party to pack the courts
It is done on both sides, except both sides haven't had an equal chance to make appointments due to life span of existing judges and the then Senate Majority Leader (senator who is appointed the head of that ruling body when their party takes a majority in that body) in 2008 blocked all Supreme Court appointments that came up for all 8 years of the Obama administration. That was Mitch McConnell, and he, and his party, blocked appointment of new judges by just never allowing the motion to be voted on, as the Republicans held the senate 2 years into Obama presidency (when some seats opened) and as such their majority leader gets to decide the docket of what will be voted on in the senate and he chose to never once allowed SCOTUS appointee motions to reach the floor.
Its easy to have this opinion when you're not a US citizen, you don't have the same frame of reference as we do for a conversation involving our own government. Especially considering that in the US left/right dont even exist, we have right/far right, there is no left in our country, this is just how the conversation is framed so we can trick ourselves into thinking that there is a more progessive party to vote for. When an American says "right" or "conservative" they mean the people who identify as such in our country, those people are actually extremely far right, usually Christian nationalists. We essentially have a government that is setup so your vote is for "The continuing unrestricted rampage of capitalism on the working class" and "were going to see what a dictatorship by an orange dipshit is like"
I've now informed myself on the Republicans and the Democrats views and policies and the Republucans indeed seem quite right, more so than I thought. My stance on this post is still the same but I guess this helps to put things into perspective...
Agreed. This is a terrible take. Is basically implying "both sides are the same", a staple in the ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM group but they're not. Blue side wants to maintain the status quo and maybe, very slightly, make light progressive changes (but again very small changes) while red side is trying to destroy social safety nets (cutting socials security), women's autonomy (roe vs wade and more) and democracy itself (Jan 6). That's not to mention that Republicans for the most part built their ideology based off hate. Their drive comes from reactionary outrage.
How is this not an opinion? Do you think the elections in russia are unquestionably fair?
"I think women shouldn't have total control over their bodies"
Nobody has total control, that was never up for debate, it's just a question of where you draw the line. You can't consume heroin, for example. If you're holding a baby in your arms, you dont have the "total freedom" to drop it. Similarly, it's a valid ethical debate if and when an embrio is concidered another living being. You might say "control over their body", someone else might say "it's not their body, it's that of another human".
Your entire comment assumes that "the others" are intolerant and you are the tolerant saint. The truth is, what is tolerant depends on your morals and is thus subjective. Tolerating other's opinions is a fundemental requirement for a democracy, with the exception of opinions that are anti-democratic. Not tolerating a whole political view, however, has nothing to do with that. That would just means being an intolerant asshole and claiming that one's own political beliefs are the only ones that are correct.
Trans are grooming: It is an insult and LITERALLY what the US conservatives are running on. You need to understand this.
Elections: We aren't talking about Russian elections.
Abortions: Read "A defence of abortion" by Judith Jarvis and get back to me. But before you do, stop acting like "you don't have the right to drop a baby onto the floor!" is remotely in the ballpark of an apt comparison. Fuck off with that nonsense too.
Yeah but you said that doubting the validity of elections is not an opinion. We weren't talking about any country's elections specifically.
stop acting like "you don't have the right to drop a baby onto the floor!" is remotely in the ballpark of an apt comparison
I never claimed it to be but dont you realize that it refutes your claim that one should have "total" control over one's body? This showd that its a matter of where you draw the line. Its not black and white. Can you kill a baby after it was born? Two minutes before? A month before? 6 months before?
This entire thread is clearly about us politics. Furthermore, the idea that you can use THE ENTIRE GLOBE to cherry pick any scenario is absurd and you know it. Stop trying to play that copout game and own the fact that we are discussing American politics.
I never claimed it to be but dont you...
"I never said it was but it totally was!" So no to that as well. Argue in good faith or fuck off.
"I never said it was but it totally was!" So no to that as well.
To make sure you can't interpret this the wrong way:
I did not claim that having the right to drop a baby was comparable to having the right to abort
However, it is completely irrelevant how comparable they are because this nontheless clearly shows that your absolute claim of "total choice" is false.
To sum it up for you:
The dropping example refutes your claim about total control
You said it isn't comparable
I agreed and pointed out that I never claimed it to be. However, it still refutes your fucking claim. The whole point was for it to be non-controversial (I hope we agree dropping a baby is not your right) so we can both agree that you do not have total control, which you had previously implied.
Dude you just did it again. You can't say "I didn't compare them" and then immediately say how they compare. You aren't this stupid, stop acting like it.
Wasn’t that the part where they made fun of a black and/or young person for not speaking good? In fact I’ve seen that twice in the top level replies so far.
I'm just perplexed how kids are still religious in 2024 with vast amount of free information out there. I thought this cult bullshit was about to end with my generation when we got free, unrestricted information exchange invented.
I guess you can't fix irrationality with rationality huh
From my perspective its because people won't change their beliefs unless they stop benefiting the believer. For people who live in a religious community, there church's sunday social event is enjoyable, there friends are all religious, there denomination provides a entire moral framework and worldview they don't even need to think about. Confirmation bias plays a major role in preventing alternate thought to block out other worldviews.
Only when someone does not gain much benefit from there religion or has a important part of there religion proven wrong, can they process alternative ideologies and either switch to a more useful denomination or stop believing entirely.
Yep I have a friend who joined a church after not going to one for years because of the social aspects of it. Lots of people their age to relate to.
We just need better secular groups to join with those benefits that aren't tied to religion. It's one of the reasons I'm always apprehensive about volunteering because I don't want the connection to religion. I know it doesn't matter my intent for those who benefit/what benefits from the volunteering, but it affects my long term commitment to the cause.
Its a shame as well because many of the old social places such as rotary club and the masonic lodges have died out, and the new "third places" are online and/or expensive to access (vrchat comes to mind). Its no wonder so many people use social media these days.
But being closer to more "true" metaphysics and rationality is benefiting, though I guess that's probably not obviously apparent to everyone.
What does this even mean. What are "true" metaphysics? Please tell me you're not just going to spew pseudoscientific nonsense at me.
My man popped some DMT then hopped on Lemmy
The funny thing is that those words somehow have actual meaning. Metaphysics is the philosophy of existance. I believe the "true" metaphysics he refers to is the fact that it is unknowable if anything other then you exists, because there is no guarantee you are not a bozmian brain or living in a simulation along other things.
This ability combined with rationality can allow you to adapt to changes in your perception of reality, while other frameworks can't (for example there are still people who don't believe in evolution because there interpretation of god is dependent on god creating all species at the start)
I put it in quotes because truth in this context is likely not binary. Here, "true" as in something that can be researched and argumented for rather than something that requires pure faith.
Agreed, though for most believing in irrational things is "fine" (in that it doesn't harm them) until someone shows up to take advantage of it (I'm guessing at least one person is using ai to make it look like they can perform holy miracles on Facebook).
But isn't that harm them? maybe indirectly but restricting your world view will restrict your agency. i.e. people will take advantage of you.
Exactly, its fine until it isn't. Unfortunately most people don't seem to realize just because there beliefs work in the present doesn't mean they will continue to be beneficial in the future (e.g. a christian being recruited to work for free at the pastors business because "it is gods will")
A lot of them need to be actively exposed to other views and opinions to break free. So usually when they go to college.
but internet does all that too. Especially more immersive social media like Youtube or podcasts. I'm generally very optimistic but the progress of our information network as someone who lived through it turned out much weaker than we thought it'd be. Maybe that human exposure of college is much more powerful thant basically infinite knowledge at your fingertips.
That's taking it too far, in my opinion. I realize it's supremely unpopular to be a person of faith nowadays, especially online, but you can't say that anyone with faith is stupid and it's all bullshit as a blanket statement. You don't know what happens after we die, and neither do I. I can't prove that God definitely exists and I'll probably never convince you of it, but by the same token, you can't prove that God doesn't exist.
Where we diverge is I think it's okay that you believe that. And yes, of course you can point out the shitty people that use religion to persecute and restrict others' rights, to punish, and worse. Many people do this, but they are still the vocal minority we hear about. And it's not like there haven't been terrible atheists/agnostics who have done awful things not motivated by religion...
Me, personally, I also won't attend any church that tries to be political or tell its members how to vote. I am a Christian, but I try to model my religious activity on the Sikhs: quiet, respectful, loving outreach to improve the world. So I can acknowledge the problems, but no, I don't think all religion is bad nor every person of faith stupid...
Edit: spelling
They didn't say stupid, you did. They said irrational, which it is. You're right no one can prove that there is no afterlife, but believing in something that there is no evidence for is the definition of irrational. That doesn't mean I'm saying you're stupid, I'm just saying that it's irrational. No need to get offended, that's just what words mean.
And remember that it's not an insult. Even a lot of science depends on taking an irrational position to discover things. Doing irrational things in life can sometimes be way more rewarding than doing rational things.
Trying to explain to someone that their take is not evidence-based though... most jump to the conclusion that you're saying they're wrong.
It's not the belief that makes you "stupid" is the irrationality of the whole package. If you're looking for metaphysics answers - we got them. People tried to figure out this stuff since the beginning of time with rationality and logic and even experiments rather than blind faith to words they never even heard personally. That's the difference.
I don't discriminate against the religious but it's really easy to argue that reglious approach is taking the easy approach to metaphysics and it's something important to consider here.
Most people are not actually people, they are people-like imposter automatons and they are dumb as hell and can be manipulated like clay.
Inoculating believers against rational counter-arguments is a powerful tool. Do it right, and the vast amount of information at their fingertips might seem like the whole secular world is conspiring against them.
My friend got sucked into it because of a girl. His parents weren't religious. I don't think he had gone to church more than twice in his life by high school, and he, just like the rest of us, trash talked our school's requirements to have a 'chapel' hour once a week. He was as blasé as they come about religion, perhaps an agnostic in the christian hemisphere at best, but when he started dating a christian girl, he went to church with her, made friends with her friends at church, etc. Now 15 years later he's indoctrinating his kids with her, and a deacon at his church. The power of social influence is enormous. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to break free, or even just consider information that is contradictory, if you have the combination of early influence and the later social influence from family, friends, and the wider social circle that is part and parcel of a church.
I'm a Zoomer, and one of my best friends is very religious precisely because of the internet. He reads the Bible online a lot, and is in a bunch of Christian Discord servers, and often reads up theology. To be fair, he is very progressive on pretty much all issues except birth control, he isn't a blind authority-obeyer, and is totally fine with me being agnostic.
Uh...?
Religion is not always a cult. All religions are not like Christianity.
See Hinduism, Buddhism, confussionism
If I didn't know about the Hindus and Muslims "beefing" (pun intended) in India, I'd be inclined to believe you.
Religions are cults that have grown bigger than normal cult size. Just because a religion isn't a Western religion, doesn't mean it's any better than a big cult
Nah they're still cults. People have this morphed view that religion is not a cult when it is by the very definition of it:
Not to say that cults can't be net good in some form but once they grow past local community I think it's just impossible to not lose the mission to bad actors.
I prefer this view. Limiting the definition of cults to "small" or "based around a person" is missing the point that all religions are self-preserving in-groups that offer "truths" that will limit your worldview by excluding others, and practices that differentiate followers behaviorally.
But also beliefs can be useful. For example, the idea of an afterlife or reincarnation can help reduce the fear of death. The belief of forgiveness for sins, can offer redemption. That random events have meaning. That we are not alone when we are alone. All cognitively useful and therapeutic.
Opposing beliefs can be held at the same time. I can know that probabilistically, or based on personal experience, or empirical evidence, that death is either an ending or an unknowable, and still choose to believe in reincarnation because it does give more meaning to my actions and reduce fear of death.
And cult practices are often as good for the individual as the beliefs. Having community and regular social interaction is critical to human health. Conducting rituals and ceremonies give structure, meaning and comfort to the parts of our days and lives. Praying and meditating. Charity and service and on and on. These are all useful, healthy to the individual and to society.
When we can learn to adopt these things without closing our minds to other worldviews and possibilities, without in-group fear and defensiveness, without superiority and proselytization we'll be in a better world that's still full of cults
I disagree that irrational beliefs can be net good. Belief in the afterlife isn't the only way to make peace with death, but the normalization of magical thinking makes people easier to deceive and more likely to try alternative-solutions (as opposed to vaccination or chemotherapy).
I understand your point, but I think that magical and mythical thinking are fully part of how our minds evolved and still work, and if we fully develop our faculties of rationalization, almost everyone still thinks magically. Think about ideas like luck, or a fear of something improbable, or most of our expectations in life. Or why many masters of logic still believe in mythical beings and afterlives.
If you talk to someone from an animistic culture, they don't need to question or have a structure of reasoning in place to explain why the waterfall has a spirit. It just does, it always has and it's obvious. However, if a person who lives in a wealthy country today, had public education and believes that vaccines are dangerous. They will believe it rationally, not irrationally, and have a slew of rationalizations for the belief. These are two types of magical thinking, but the former has a magical worldview and the latter does not.
Rationality is weak against many types of thinking and motivation, and there are many more steps in the maturation of a mind. I do personally agree that a solid foundation in rational thinking should underlie whatever beliefs, morals, ethics, and insights a person adopts. But it is also highly likely that in my examples the former person is healthier and happier than the latter person, and both could be just as gullible.
Hinduism is the textbook definition of a cult. It's just old AF, so we give it a pass.
How tho
I suggest you look up Kali for a start.
The name of a single character from their religious stories tells me nothing about their behavior
She's a god, represents time, change, power, creation, preservation, destruction...she's a mother figure... You haven't given me any useful information. Maybe give a link or something with information about her relevance to cult behavior?
Hmph. Maybe look up "Hinduism is a cult" and then scroll until you read a preview that fits my beliefs
Kali Linux?
Linux is definitely a cult, and I am a proud cultist
Nah, religion is always a cult.
Imo cults have more to do with in-groups and out-groups and their relation in your mental space.
If your in-group is worth more to you than the total sum of all out-groups; you are in a cult.
Humanity is one race, subdividing it and labelling all the chunks is where we went wrong. The fact we have a word to describe this outcome shows we are pretty far down this tube.
If you're reading this and think to yourself "surely this person is misled, they're not a part of (insert religion) so wouldn't know anything about what they say" congratulations, you're right (and also in a cult).
Exactly. My nephews seem to complain about the shit their dad told them to vote for. It's rather hilarious.
The fuck happened to the rebelliousness of youth?
Should kids be doing exactly not whatever their parents tell them to?
Kids these days.. GET ON MY LAWN!!
They might think they're rebelling against the normality of voting for basic human kindness and decency.
Pure propaganda. Kids are more than happy to follow behind their older peers and always have been.
It's "rebellion" if the kids literally anything at all. Speak up? Question anything? Show any kind of agency? Mimic what your elders are doing? You're out of control.
Stupid comes in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ages. 🤪
Yep. They were taught to hate people and that "Trumps" voting to improve things, or bring down costs...
The hate and negativity is such a big part of it. It’s kind of the foundation, really. It sounds simple, but it is the main thing I had to train out of my brain while figuring out wtf I want out of life and how to enjoy the journey.
If I’m hanging out with family still stuck in that mindset and discussing an acquaintance? You bet I’m going to hear what race they are (if not white, which is the default human in their minds), how big of a house they have, how much money they make, and of course how stupid they are. Nothing of substance.
All that negativity, paranoia, and anger makes it much easier to get the conservative base to not spend time thinking about the suffering of others, and instead think about how much stuff they’ve acquired and how the “other” people want to steal it.
It’s a strange position for me to be in, personally. I can see how somebody would stay immersed in that shitty mindset for life without exposure to the wider world, because I know the feeling of living in that mindset (let’s call it high school). However, I also have eyes and ears and access to the internet, and I think all available information should be considered even if reality has a liberal bias.
How do you indoctrinate the curiosity out of people? 😬
Well, if you question it, you are a bad person and going to hell. It's not that God doesn't love you, but you are forcing God to send you to hell because you are choosing to question.
Actually it's pronounced jiff
Really? Have you not been paying attention?
Yes I've been paying attention, however it remains baffling to me as I see curiosity as essential as breathing or eating, so perhaps the question may be better asked as, how is inhibiting curiosity not recognized as a form of abuse?
See also: reactionary movements.
I sometimes really want to show those reactionary gamers a trial version of the authoritarian society they stive for...
So send them a documentary on what happened in NAZI Germany.
But don’t be surprised when they tell you that’s exactly what they want because they’re white men and it puts them at the top of the heirarchy.
But their geeky stuff wouldn't survive any of that...
They won’t understand that until they’re in the middle of it.
This is my exact story to a "t". I grew up in a heavily conservative household, joined the military as a conservative, and 15 years later I'm pretty fucking blue.
I think it's a combination of a few things that does it to us more often than not:
1 - Exposure to people from all walks of life/escaping your "bubble" 2 - Access to tax payer funded social programs that the rest of America desperately fucking needs and going "Why can't taxes do this for EVERYONE!?" 3 - If you've been deployed to certain sections of the world, you see first-hand what unfettered religious extremism can potentially do to a country.
I'm happy to say, that at least for the Air Force, I've run into far, far more Active Duty Dems/Libs than I have any Repubs. Now, when the retired veteran GS employees come in, it's a completely different story. My whole circle save one is fairly left-leaning, and the one who isnt is...fucking weird/all over the place on his stances.
Every single person I know who has gotten out of the military has come out blue. With one (medically discharged) exception.
In my experience 20 years ago, it was mostly split between people who didn't care or at least didn't talk politics (the majority) and people who were very loud in thinking a Democrat would reduce the pay of enlisted service members.
I'm sure conservatives would love this, but we should be using the military in this way as a de-radicalizing force. We should be leaning into it.
30% of your time being red. 30% of your time coming to your senses. 40% of your time trending towards borderline radical blue.
There is your 60/40 split.
Anecdotally, this was somewhat my experience as well, except my parents didn’t talk politics much and they certainly didn’t show the extreme hate towards the left that fox and rush have since incited. I went more from voting on surface level attributes (speaking ability, apparent warmth, etc) and social pressure, to actually [eventually] looking at policy. I was a registered independent when I joined, but I didn’t know enough about actual politics to understand the details of what I was voting for. I.e., I was going with the flow. It has the same effect at the ballot box though.
Well put.
I think a lot of your political beliefs start with your parents and people around you, but then are shaped by what happens to you. If you get hit with the hard reality of life in some way (debt, health, etc) it tends to push you to be more progressive/empathetic toward others because you see just how truly cold and cruel the bottom of our society gets treated. If you have coasted through life and have parents and friends supporting you financially and we're lucky enough to get a good job and have relatively good health and such then you may not know the horrors of what can happen if you hit a few rough patches.
Similarly in military service, if you get injured and now have to go to the VA and fight to receive the most basic of medical care you were promised and denied it tends to push you left/progressive because you want things to be better. If you are still in the service or left it relatively undamaged then you could easily still see things from a conservative and right leaning perspective.
When you or people close to you get (denied medical care, denied housing, denied work, pushed into poverty and/or homelessness, used by the system and then discarded like trash) you tend to see things more progressive and want to provide some basic levels of support and humanity and empathy toward others as opposed to exploiting them for profit.
what was the red/blue percent (in your opinion) if you only included officers and above?
It's embarrassing for everyone gen x and after. It's especially disappointing to see in gen z
Could have ended the comment after 4 words.
For men, a lot of it has to do with personal frustration and several "sources" or "influencers" pointing to communism, cultural marxism, feminism, etc, as the culprits of everything bad going on. Attacking a scapegoat you've been led to believe is "the reason" you can't get a job or a girlfriend is easy and emotionally satisfying.
Thinking, rationalizing and realizing how and why shit's fucked up, down, left and right doesn't fill you with good vibes.
If you want an honest answer, it's that young boys are feeling left behind, and in many ways they are right. This is a longer video (~30min) but it seems in line with much of what I've been seeing, that the boys are not alright.
Essentially, as any system begins to give equality to all, it will appear as a loss for those who used to solely benefit from it. That said this is still something to take seriously.
The gender gap is reversed in several areas: in education girls do better than boys. There are more women in university than men. Real wealth of women has been rising while in many demographics (especially poor young men of color) wealth has been decreasing. This is not a 0 sum game, so these are real concerns. 75% of suicides are men, and in their notes it is common to see words like "useless" "unwanted" and "worthless". They feel that the world is leaving them behind.
This trend is not happening to those in the elite class- that is still very much male dominated, however for many poor men without college degrees, their lives are no longer looking like what they were raised to expect. That same demographic is who you are more likely to see at a trump rally.
This is fertile ground for people like Tucker Carlson and Andrew Tate to bring these young men into their world view that women are taking away their futures.
This is where I would say men who are in places of being role models (teachers, mentors, fathers, coaches, pastors, etc...) need to come in and show that there is a new reality for men and that it's not only okay, it's better. Being a stay at home dad can be freeing as you may be able to pursue other interests. Showing what leadership is is important, but also showing how to work as a team and under the leadership of a woman is important too and can be fulfilling.
I'm an educator, and one thing I think about is that I want to teach the girls that men are not to be feared, and to teach the boys not to be men to be afraid of. There is a better future ahead, but only if we take action and support the next generation of boys as well as girls. Without this support, we are handing a large portion of disaffected youth to a toxic mindset that will have horrible consequences.
Oddly enough, I could see one of these boys looking at this post and thinking "the left doesn't care about me, so why would I care about them?"
As someone who lost a friend to that rabbit hole, I really think we should put that far right conspiracy theory between quotation marks when named alongside things that actually exist. Communism and feminism are real (even if they are perceived as demonic by these people, they still at least exist). "Cultural marxism" doesn't even have entity, it's just bullshit entirely made up by the usual grifters
But you don't need a scapegoat. The problem is literally the billionaires. You only need a scapegoat to justify white supremacist hierarchy building.
For me it has to do with having evaluated various political philosophies according to my personal experience and chosen the one that best matches what I think is right.
To be fair if you’re anything past Boomer, at this point you should be too embarrassed to vote for any GOP candidate. When the party decided to support Trump—a guy with proven sexual assault charges, pending fraud charges, pending classified document charges, a penchant for insurrection that he happily acknowledges, and more and more video surfacing of him unable to be coherent, hopefully most everyone with any connection to reality has realized it’s time to kick him and the GOP to the curb.
The Boomers should be mortified. Their parents were the one who sacrificed their young adulthood to eliminate the Nazis 80 years ago. They're spitting on their parents' graves by supporting Trump.
The problem is, boomers are the most selfish generation. The other name for their generation is the Me Generation, because after the war, after the depression, their parents had done all the hard work, been through all the hard times, and started to get money and financial security and so they gave their children everything they wanted creating the absolute selfishness we see today. They don't care a lick about their parents sacrifices because they had everything they ever wanted and for them it's all about "me, me , me!"
Then the Boomers tried to give that moniker to both Gen X, and The Millennials. I'm glad they have short attention spans.
You're absolutely right on that one! Hadn't thought of it from that perspective, but hell yes.
A lot of our current brand of conservatism appeals to people's notion of unfairness. People taking things from them. They have been told over and over that liberals are lazy and want to take things from them.
Remember that these are young people who don't have a lot of experiences in adult life, but have experienced basic, uncomplicated unfairness. Fighting against that simple, unnuanced unfairness appeals to them.
Conservatives tell you a whole list of people who are supposedly stealing from you to distract from the fact that they're currently picking your pocket.
If your values can only be justified by shock news and lies then you're going to want more of that type of news.
It's tough being young. Jobs don't pay what they used to. Rent costs too much. Even the food is a struggle.
You know who is the blame for this?
Brown people.
This message is brought to you by the conservative party of your country. They're all the fucking same.
Indoctrination, propaganda, alt-right playbook recruitment through targeting the disaffected... these aren't young people who've turned to conservatism, they've been actively targeted by right wing factions in order to bolster their position.
Edit: Oh, and also Reagan era neo-liberals are the fucking worst and when they shit on progressives and their ideas, they basically push away people who would otherwise be politically left leaning.
I dunno but for some reason they're on this platform too (dunno why all things considered). Go ask them.
It's either a belief things can only get worse or hate in their heart.
Like, if you get dunked on everywhere on the internet you go maybe take the hint your beliefs are generally frowned upon and may not be correct.
Orrr you could use that to strengthen your persecution complex and feed your conspiratorial thinking!
"Wow, they really are out to get me!"
Pretty sure this is a bubble view point, look at how many right wing populists are successful in the world right now. Conservatives are not a small group and I'm sure their views are considered good and normal in many spaces.
But it's easy to say "it's the corrupt society that is wrong" or that social media is full of bots or commies etc, it can serve to validate their views. Like the hero in a dystopian story, they are one of the few that see the truth.
It's valid, what you said. But the internet can also be a huuuuge asshole. I'm not excusing the awfulness that is conservativism (fucking ew furiously washes hands) by any measure; self-reflection is a requirement of a sentient human and is absent in some animals. However, one does see how an opinion from an asshole so very vast might get discounted, folded-in with the cheese of selection bias, as it were.
Hexbear: "wait a second"
If they're wealthy they usually vote Tory, that's one reason for sure.
We'll get the conservatives out of government soon, but I don't think Labour are much better, just two sides of the same coin, unfortunately.
You'll still be stuck with Keir "I agree with my friends across the aisle but wish they'd go further" Starmer. Labor was completely hollowed out after Corbyn. It's just careerist flaks and corporate shills, with anyone who defies the leadership getting punted off the ticket.
Who could have guessed that if the party systematically annihilates anyone and anything who dislikes the status quo you'd be left with Tories with red paint.
Corbyn was the worst thing that could've happened to Labour. The man just did not understand the role of Party Leader and could not prioritise party or country over his own nostaligia-tinged ideological pet causes
Oh Jeremy Corbyn! Why did Labour Party membership soar after the 2015 general election?
If you're in the U.S or a lot of places, both sides of the government are conservative. There is literally no left option. Not sure what Labour is like in the UK.
The current leader has been whipping his MPs to vote with conservative policy and is generally in agreement with them. They've been some of the weakest opposition I've ever seen. The Scottish national party (SNP) has been the only genuine left wing party with any significant presence in Westminster. The Labour party leader recently threatened the speaker (who is labour but is supposed to be impartial) to stop a SNP debate day when they wanted to pass a recognition of genocide in Gaza.
They're selling point is they are more competent and less cruel than the conservatives. The keep on dropping their more progressive policies. Recently they've dropped their reform of the house of lords, an unelected chamber that currently places religious leaders and Russians with KGB ties in unaccountable legislative roles for life.
Sounds like they've been bought then. Usually when a party starts throwing their weight around for morality policy (which shouldn't be a thing in politics anyway) it means rich people are paying the bills.
Labour in Scotland kicked out their previous leader because the party donors didn't like him. The farther of the current labour leader also donates significant amount of money to Labour, and basically bought his sons seat as an MSP in the first place.
That's the thing with a republic - those who vote Democrat in NYC or LA have to compromise with those who vote Democrat in other places like Virginia and Oregon, for the type of median representation they get in federal government.
Democrats used to have the South they could count on, and eventually the nation got FDR for four consecutive terms and the New Deal.
Then the LBJ administration - from Texas, of all places - and Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, and Democrats lost that electoral advantage they had in the South.
All the ingrained racist simpletons in society shifted towards the other side - "That republican fellow might screw me over, but at least he's one of ours, a good patriotic christian (read: white) American that talks to me in MY (racist dog whistle) language!"
What so many people don't seem to ever get is that permanent changes in Washington work through inertia and take voting in every election, because the safer any party can feel in office, the bolder they can afford to be in that slow-moving, change-resistant place.
Democrats did it before because they had the South they could rely on, including Texas. Now Democrats don't have the South.
FDR was a fluke for the Democratic Party up until that point. That's why his cousin ran on the Republican ticket in 1912.
But it still happened, and the opportunity for it to happen could only have been in the Democrat Party. Try and brush it off as much as you try, it's still an undeniable event, fact and history, and proof that both parties are NOT the same.
By the same token of your argument, LBJ and Congress passing the Civil Rights Act was a fluke, because it only happened once? They knowingly sacrificed the entire electoral south for several generations and to this day, to do the right thing. "Yeah, but it doesn't count." Oh give me a break.
Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, there are shining examples of Democrats attempting to do the right thing in a complex and changing, overwhelming world, while with republicans at the same time it has been all about endless avarice and appetite, with the snarl of bigotry facing in all directions.
That wasn't my point. My point is that the parties switched, or more accurately The Republicans went from being left of Democrats to the far right sometime between 1912 and 1945-1960
This is a really big part of the problem, I think. Politicians on the "left" tend to be actually just more moderate right wingers, or unable to accomplish much of anything meaningful.
It's much the same in Canada too, our Liberal party is supposed to be the mainstream "left" option but they're just doing moderate right politics with pride flags.
Then there's the NDP which actually has some leftist elements, and I'm grateful to have a meaningful 3rd party, but they've still never formed government at the federal level.
And we've ingested so much cold war propaganda that if you just say "socialist" people start getting freaked out.
As progressive values become more mainstream being an edgy conservative becomes a form of counter culture.
This shows in those god awful conservative memes people make that say shit like "Im not like other girls, I dress modestly, dont drink or do drugs and the only man I get on my knees for is JEsus" type shit. or the male equivalent where they talk about how theyre the only real man left in a world where people drink soy lattes and dont beat their kids.
i'm 24 and a proud conservative: i want to replace all highways with railways and interurban tramways, return to having small dense cities surrounded by lively rurality, dissolve large corporations and replace them with small local businesses, and bring back that thing where we went "hey the slightly insane guy who never works is living in a shack that barely qualifies as shelter, let's build him a new cottage so he has a proper place to live, because everyone has a fundamental right to housing no matter what."
Conservative literally means to conserve. To not change the way things are.
You wanting change means you are progressive.
The poster would like to revert to a time of more progressive economic policies and conserve it. 😏😆 In the US, it’s a funny dichotomy that the progressives are fighting for things which were lost.
The US had everything the poster points out at one time. It’s just been dismantled over the years in the name of progress.
Ah. Thanks. The comment makes much more sense now.
Consecutive may also mean change such that you can just carry on with your life as normal. But that's not what conservatives do nowadays.
You know there are opinions on a thousand topics which you are trying to sum up into a binary system like that is sufficient.
I don't understand how those world views can identify and (you didn't say this, so hopefully not) vote conservative in US these days
He's making light of how twisted the US understanding of the word "conservative" has become.
If conservatives actually governed the way they should they’d be easier to vote for. Small government, cutting spending, actually legislating to support rural Americans with things like good education and affordable health care…etc.
But they’re pretty much the opposite of all that.
That's the point. The Republican party isn't conservative at all, but radical. They've abandoned most conservative political positions, including orthodox fiscal management, and exchanged conservative values for a constructed collection of 'traditional values', which are derived less from tradition than from the endless grievances that have replaced policy as their political program
Is there evidence that conservatism was ever that anywhere though? Because those are the things that current conservatives SAY but never what they DO. Is there any evidence of conservatives actually doing those things because as far as I have seen it has always been lip service, sleight of hand. I'm open to examples to change my mind.
Afaik someone can correct me if I'm wrong but the Democratic party used to be the fiscal conservative party in the 1800s
You're correct. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the most progressive Presidents in history, was on the Republican ticket against Taft in 1912. I cannot fathom having had the ability to vote for Teddy, and voting for either Taft or Wilson.
Western conservative parties were mostly fiscally responsible until the 80s, and outside the USA they've tended to come around on many civil liberties. Women's suffrage was passed with cross-aisle support in many European countries, for instance, as was same-sex marriage. Even today, the conservative parties in Northern Europe mostly stand for fiscal responsibility. In general, conservative parties in systems with Proportional representation seem to be much less exposed to capture by the far right.
I'll almost certainly never vote conservative, but given how many do, I'm thankful to be living in a country where that means budget cuts and reduced income tax for the upper middle, and not the stripping away of rights and liberties and deficit-funded tax cuts for the rich.
Conservatism protects power where it exists now. You fundamentally can't do that and be honest about it and maintain some form legitimacy in an ostensibly democratic system.
If you say "we love billionaires because they give us fat cheques, also we're cutting your services because the billionaires don't like taxes" you don't get votes. So you have to drop one of those three things, and of course "be honest about it" is the easiest one to go without.
Maybe they hate women and women's rights, loves Jesus and thinks priests raping little boys is OK
Also cowboy boots and Stetson yeehaw
Lmao my mans rode the political merry-go-round and came out the opposite side full on Marxist. Welcome to the club brother, we got dope ass flags and mad pamphlets.
i'd call myself anarchist syndicalist :P, this was a joke about how conservatives aren't actually conservative, just filled with hatred and xenophobia.
There are dozens of us out there. :P
Ahhh to right like "literally to conserve a past time" haha you got me, nice one.
You just described all the things that conservatives have worked hard to stop from happening every time they've been in power. The only political ideology that actively wants to house the homeless, build robust public transport, moves to small towns and boycotts large corporations to support small business are deep to far left.
The Japanese conservatives built one of the world's best public transport systems, constructed entire towns for workers and are now pushing people to move to small towns. (They're still owned by the corporations, though.)
what you just said means you are not a conservative...
a conservative would want to keep the highway system the way it is, take more money away from its maintenance bugdet if anything. a conservative would never want to dissolve large businesses. a conservative would not give a crap about what you're using as shelter, and certainly wouldn't believe that access to housing is a basic human right.
You're a lot more left than you realize. you might even be socialist. do you believe that the workers of a company should be given the profit that company enjoys, or should it all go to the shirts at the top? Do you believe that the working class should never be disarmed, and any attempt to disarm the working class should be disrupted?
yes, very aware of that, as i am in fact an anarchist syndicalist.
the point is to make fun of how modern conservatives have nothing they want to conserve other than their racial purity and personal wealth.
i would very much like to reclaim the term conservative for opinions that are ACTUALLY conservative, such as ending the suburban experiment and the neoliberal pursuit of wealth above actual happiness and social stability.
Your motivation in thinking these changes are the right ones is not conservative, I imagine. You probably think about the future, how things could be better, not based on some traditional values or because you remember how things were vaguely "better" in the past.
Sorry to break it to you, you are progressive.
it's almost amazing how many people had the point sail over their heads, i'm very much progressive :)
i look at the past, see it was in many ways pretty good, look at the present, see it's pretty fucking miserable in those same ways, and then the obvious conclusion is that maybe people in the past did some stuff right, such as enjoying the sociopolitical benefits of public transport and workers' rights.
then i see people call themselves conservative and just advocate making things WORSE, and i'm filled with an intense desire to wallop them with wet day-old fish.
Sir or madam, you are absolutely nailing a closeted progressive affection.
Nothing about that is conservative.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-the-joke
You said you are a proud conservative and then proceeded to list off things that are completely antithetical to it. I am so confused. Everything you said is progressive, socialist, leftist, not at all conservative. Conservatives want things to stay as they are, to not progress, to not change. I.E. This system is working (for me) so let's keep it. Progressives say things aren't working (for everyone) so we should attempt to make it better for us all instead of a few people having everything and most people having little.
I mean this in the kindest most supportive way possible. You may want to do some introspection and comparisons with what you want to happen and what the political parties are pushing for. You may find you are anything but conservative or you may find you actually are conservative and you really don't want those things you said.
it's a half-joke on how conservatism has become a parody of itself these days, and isn't actually really conservative in any real way.
It was originally about maintaining an aristocracy and it is still is to this day.
But were the point you listed originally conservative values?
Maybe they hate the gays and don't want women to vote 🤷♂️
This never existed. Not since capitalism at least.
that was specifically a modified example from nearby me, where the local parish decided to build a new house for a person who was struggling to get by.
That's a cool story. Not sure what you think it proves.
That's liberal. Far left liberal in fact.
Liberals would be against "government interventionism" such as getting rid of large corporations or taxing to then spend that money on public transportion.
Modern liberalism is not at all aligned with the Left on the Economic space, only on the non-Economic, personal freedoms, one.
Granted, big picture thinking would eventually end up concluding that differentiated treatment depending on wealth together with wealth inequality in overall reduces individual freedom (a few are freer to do what they want but the many are less free) which would end up aligning at least some liberals with leftwing thinking, but sadly that's not what liberalism is nowadays.
Sorry I'm from Canada and we have an actual political system still and not a charade. Trust me everywhere outside of the U.S liberal still means progressive. Your 'liberal' centrism is unique. We call that conservative.
I'm in Europe and I'm making my comment mainly based on my experience with the British Liberals (both the overt ones - the Liberal Party - and the less overt ones - New Labour) as I lived in Britain for over a decade and was even involved in politics there.
Next to the traditional Left in most of Europe, Liberalism isn't at all Left: it's just Neoliberalism with an Pro-Equality But Not The Economic Kind coat of paint to make it seem left of center.
You do get elements of liberalism within leftwing parties in Europe, but they're not liberal in the full sense, probably because of the contradiction I pointed out in my first post (that on the economic side, complete freedom for money results in quality of life going down for most people, which goes directly against the leftwing principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number").
It's not by chance that Liberals constantly talk about what's good for businesses or for the Economy in absolute terms (if it's good for those, then it's overall good) whilst not everything that's "good for businesses or the Economy" is actually good for people: businesses and the Economy are at most a means to an end for democratic lefties (in that they can make life better for most people and must be regulated to stop them from doing the opposite), not an end in itself.
Just because a party calls themselves that and then does some shit, doesn't change the definition of a word
If the definition of the word was that clear we would both know and agree on exactly were "liberalism" starts and were it ends, and wouldn't be having this discussion, plus you wouldn't have made the distinction in your previous post between the meaning of liberal in the US and "everywhere outside the US".
In the absence of such perfect and worldwide agreed definition for "liberalism", the best we can use is real-world examples of those who proclaim themselves as "liberals" (and in the case of New Labour, it's not even in the party name) to show the common understanding of the word in various countries and the ones I listed on my last post are my real world examples which directly contradict your statement that "everywhere outside the US liberal still means progressive".
My notion of "liberalism" is one anchored on my experience of living and voting in 4 different countries of Europe so while I can't prove to you that "that's what's understood as liberalism all over the World" (and, frankly, I doubt it is), it certainly provides a Western and Southern Europe-centric first person observation of what is said to be "liberalism" over here, a reasonably large area of the world which most definitelly counts as "outside the US".
The definition of the word liberal in the dictionary is being open to new ideas and beliefs.
Is it? I like some links to back up either position.
What are you expecting to have them send you? A link to a paper proving that having empathy for fellow humans means you are not conservative?
Bro. Just like, think about it.
OPs talking points align nearly perfectly with normal progressive talking points.
Increase high density housing.
Increase public transport.
Public safety net (housing for the homeless).
Redistribution of wealth.
What it likely boils down to are the two conservative talking points they have left, guns and reproductive rights.
If OP truly feels that abortion is murder and believes in his heart that he has the right to dictate his own personal beliefs on others, and / or has fallen for the lie that the left is going to take their guns away (they won't), they will vote Republican despite everything else pointing to the logical choice being a progressive Democrat.
Edit:
I feel I need to mention that just because I (a man) personally cannot imagine a scenario in which I would need to get an abortion (because I lack ovaries), and my current life situation is such that I don't forsee my partner requiring one, I still will vote to protect women's right to bodily autonomy. I strongly believe that I have no right to even participate in the discussion. My opinion is literally worthless, and I don't have to live with the consequences of my vote.
That being said, I take the position of provide access to abortion but also provide services to women to try and decrease the need for abortion. I also am in favor of providing free healthcare to pregnant women and children of families in need of it, and I believe childcare should be subsidized.
It's funny because technically abortion shouldn't even be a right vs left issue (has nothing to do with economic policy). It's just like that in the U.S because of the ridiculousness of their binary political system.
Both "sides" are so incredibly close in Economic terms that all that's left for them to differentiate themselves is the Moral plan, hence you end up with ridiculous shit like criminalizing abortion or the whole trans rights fight.
It's all cover to how both "sides" don't really care about managing the country for the good of the many: they're two cheeks of the same arse hence when it comes to overall quality of life you get the same shit.
Ah yes, the same shit. That's why Republican-majority states are roughly the same as Democrat majorities on education, social services, household income, life expectancy, infant mortality... oh they aren't? Yes because "both sides" enlightened centrism is a bullshit position.
Only somebody ignorant of the political culture outside the US would call the middle-point between Democrats and Republicans "centrism".
By global standards, that shit would be "Full-on Right", specifically on Economics were it's Hard Neoliberalism (privatise everything including natural monopolies and refrain from regulating anything, to the point that, to pick quite a poignant example, the way in which the US regulates the safety of new chemicals for environments with direct human exposure - such as home use - is "allow by default until proven dangerous", which is the exact opposite of what's done in Europe were that stuff has to be proven safe first and only after that it's allowed).
Just because your further to the Right party could be best described as "Ultra-nationalist, ultra-religious, full-on racist, ultra-neoliberal, complete total nutcase Far-Right" doesn't mean that the party not quite as much to the Right is left-of-center, especial on economic (and hence, quality of life) matters.
The number of elected Democrats that are left-of-center can probably be counted using the fingers of a hand.
also, we should take gun rights back from them. their lord and savior Ronald Reagan was the one who introduced gun control when the black panthers started open carrying.
Republicans are the party of gun control.
When they give you a shocked look, remind them of Reagan.
Should seriously compromise their base.
And their current deity Trump enacted actual gun restrictions too, while the literal devil worshipper Obama did not enact any.
“Take the guns, worry about due process later” - Trump
to be abundantly clear, i'm probably more of a radical socialist than most of y'all, and that post was mostly made in jest but also i wish we'd see some sensible people reclaim the term "conservative" for opinions that are actually conservative and not just hateful.
used to be that conservatives wanted to actually conserve stuff, like nature and the welfare of their society.
I don't think conservative has ever meant the environment. It's about conserving the status quo. At this point the party should be renamed to regressives.
OK that probably explains it. Thanks. I couldn't work out how OP was claiming to be conservative.
I'm not sure how to explain that social security and public housing and public transport and corporate regulation are socialist policies lol. I knew this even before high school. Not decrying you because I agree with everything guy above you said, but you guys are certainly hanging with the wrong crowd.
Why does OP claim to be a proud conservative when listing only socialist policies?
Because brain-rot conservative media told him being on the left was bad
lmfao it's a joke.
Quoth Ash Sarkar: I'm literally a communist you idiot.
Why do you think you're being attacked? Getting used to it huh? Also did you forget to switch accounts?
almost like i'm actually a socialist :O
They are not. They are common sense policies supported, at least on paper, by both left and right in most parts of the world. The first modern welfare state was created by Otto von Bismarck, not exactly a socialist.
Also, socialism in the traditional sense implies some form of public ownership at least of key industries and large companies, which would render corporate regulation a moot point.
He did that with the explicit goal of undermining his socialist opponents (so people wouildn't have a reason to support them)
In regards to your second point, lol no. That would be communism. I'm glad that you think left wing policies are common sense though? Most of us heavily agree which is why seeing the proliferation of conservatism is disheartening.
I know, which is why I said 'at least ln paper'. But a welfare state improves the productivity of workers and soldiers, and Prussia (and Bismarck in particular) did enact many other reforms with this objective.
I understand communism to be worker control of (all) the means of production. Socialism is of course much more broad, but in general it would involve public / state ownership of at least key industries and any companies that are 'too big to fail'.
Bruh. That statement by Marx is an ideal, a metaphor for revolution. No country's populace has ever controlled the means of production. In fact if you want to take that literally, capitalist societies have for more control over industry than socialist ones do. Modern communism is generally seen as where the government controls the distribution of property. In this sense not even Russia is communist anymore.
And I wouldn't conflate them because most socialists would be pretty offended to be identified as communist. The average socialist likes Denmark and Sweden. Not Cuba or something.
It isn't? I like some links to back up either position.
We are in the same boat.
The joke really flew over a lot of people's head huh.
seems so, though to be fair it's only a half-joke as i do feel people could totally reclaim the conservative moniker for something actually good and actually conservative.
None of the positions you listed are conservative. Do you hate immigrants or something?
do read the rest of the replies
Biggest reason I see is religious indoctrination.
I can remember when being conservative meant you believed we had a calling to be stewards of creation
LOL good times
Do not underestimate the power of algorithms. I feel like instagram or YouTube are constantly trying to pull me back into the far right rabbit hole.
Grifting is pretty profitable these days
I like to define the modern Conservatives(tm) with a capital C. It's a brand, but as you point out, they are reactionaries. Modern conservatives are Democrats trying to keep all the progress made over the last 70 years. I've had to explain this to some boomers who used to be progressive, but don't seem to understand that they are no longer on the progressive side of politics.
I'm a 80s conservative. Which makes me a 2024 ANTIFA.
The 80s was the Reagan administration 🙄
It's hard to describe personal politics prior to 2000. It was easy to be a sane conservative in the 80s. There was obviously shady shit going on behind the scenes. But outwardly the conservative movement mostly espoused mainstream thought at the time.
I see that, but it's hard not to connect the dots between Reagan and Trump; what people voted for then has a direect relationship with what they're voting for now, and it wasn't rare to hear alarm bells being raised back then either. These progressions are not chaotic, unpredictable, or sudden, so it's weird to hear people talk about how normal conservatives used to be just thirty years ago. The window was not so skewed then maybe, but it was being pulled right even then.
The Republican Party in the 1980s was just starting to get taken over by Evangelicals and the NRA, and was firmly behind the Southern Strategy. It was definitely getting pulled right at that time.
It just seems the country was overall more conservative back then and they had a stranglehold on America. Their "boTh SiDeS" "Good Christian" antics were dominant. Republicans began shitting the bed as the direction of the nation diverged and they were no longer obviously in control. Then the veil got lifted on the power of money in politics and the rat lashed out from the corner.
Yeah, I was also an 80s conservative, but I couldn’t tell you how much I moved left vs how much the right pulled ever farther right.
Or maybe it was naïveté: for example it felt like “family values” meant actually valuing family, that fiscal conservativism was not spoken ironically, and science and education were worth investing in. Environmentalism seemed perfectly compatible with being an 80s conservative
But more importantly in the 80s it was ok to work with or even vote for someone in the other party. It was an attitude how things should be run, rather than a lifestyle or an us vs them. Maybe that’s just me though
It really was so different.
Because so many prefer a comfortable lie to an unpleasant truth. They want the world to be what they want it to be
To hell with reality
I am always surprised at how little credit is given to the relentless onslaught of radical fascist propaganda over airwaves, in MSM, and online...all of which do their damnedest to reach young people, teens, and even primary school kids. Very few people have any idea how powerful AM radio and Salem Media Group are. These are all the result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
None of you want to face the fact that alt-right campaigns like Gamergate and Qanon has brought a fucktonne of youth over to the cuntservative side. It's going to be a real problem now that they are old enough to vote.
Huh?
Idk who you think you are or what you thought I meant and I don't really care, but you're kind of an asshole for literally no reason. I suggest you practice what you preach and throw in a bit of therapy.
If everyone around you seems like a problem, it's most likely you. I can already tell. Now, earnestly, please go get therapy. Nobody wants to join your pity party or provide anger management for free on a public forum.
Ah, but using lack of education as a barb is ok. And so is using your medical condition as an excuse.
Hilarious, seeing your condescending replies.
Edit: Brb, redirecting my bot army that I didn't know I had to this thread 😂🤣
Man, this is what I missed about old school forums. Having real fucking non-sanitized conversations. Fuck reddit.
It's funny but that little pithy soundbite doesn't actually work in real life. If it did then all the lemmy users complaining about abusive workplaces are the problem.
That wasn't a barb, you literally responded with a one word misspelled reply for a sentence fragment. I legit thought you were semi-literate.
What assumptions have I made about you that aren't source in your ridiculously useless comments? I'd love to see you post links.
Nah, I see it clearly: you're assuming shit about people you don't know based on a single-word reply, you have delusions of vote manipulation or sockpuppeting on an active thread, you're using your medical condition to excuse your shitty behavior, and you're here pretending that you have the high moral ground on anything or higher mental sharpness after all this... I'm quite sure the problem is you.
Better question is, what assumptions have I made here? 😂
Again, hilarious that that's what you thought happened but I'm the one who needs more education. It's frankly embarrassing.
Yep, there's a reason Andrew Tate has a huge following. There's something attractive about these guys and their worldview to a giant chunk of boys.
I blame 2 generations of failed father figures, every public perception of 'manhood' contains toxic elements.
This isn't a new problem either, google China's 'bare branches' problem. We have historical records of unmarriable men forming into bands to rape and pillage since the 1200s.
And every one of them acts the same way as tate and his degenerate edgibois.
I’d argue it’s just one part of the larger “all your negative opinions are not only valid, they are correct and good!” culture that drives so much negative shit in culture & politics.
Because they’re either rich or idiots.
Politics of spite is a hell of a drug.
Some incel got rejected for prom and now NATO itself is on the fucking line.
Cuz they can't get bitches
I do not have a clue. What's the reason besides being a vile comic book villain?
Affluent upbringings without ever having to worry about anything probably
If Bush didn't deter them nothing will
Bush wasn't evil, he was an idiot. Dude is a nice guy. Dick Cheney on the other hand...
We are censoring conservative now? Or is that a bit of tongue in cheek joke?
Its more of a joke, it implies that being conservative is like being "sh1t" or other such words.
Which doesn't need to be censored either, unless you're using the shittiest app known to mankind.
Indeed, the only reason bad words are censored is to get around autoflags, which is a fucking stupid thing to do to your userbase, particularly because only advertisers, who aren't affected by it, are the only ones that care.
Someone once told me it was often to mitigate trolls searching specific terms for people to pick fights with.
Ah that makes a lot of sense, especially on Twitter. Thank you!
In my friend circles we do refer to the as "cuntservatives", but I'm guessing this person is worried about going viral in the wrong circles from conservatives searching for content with that key term, or maybe they're worried about algorithmic suppression based on key words.
a few things seem to motivate young idiots into conservative thought:
MRA their daddy their rural background edgelord BS
Wash the brain with soap every day, just like their parents & all the "cool" communities they are exposed to. The main goal in life is to protect the few individuals that already have everything from the fate of havening everything but at a bit slower rate. Its like sports, your team is best, the other needs to go to jail.
/s
Decades of "the ends justify the means" gritty antihero's, doing what "needs" to be done.
Honestly its surprising how many people have beliefs they think are evil but just they alone can bear the moral cost to support it. Its why it doesn't matter to some about Trumps crimes against democracy or rapes, they are just making "enlightened" real politic game theory decisions in there heads instead of understanding the value of ethical and honarable institutions.
At least that's part of it. An over value of "accepting a little sin" to get what they want instead of accepting the nuance and boring reality of what it actually takes to build a better world.
This is a pretty good data-driven article - "Millennials Will Not Age Into voting Like Boomers"
It mostly lumps Gen Z with them and the Silent generation with Boomers.
I don't believe this. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't.
Trust me, I never thought my parents, or many others from the boomer and gen X generations would end up this conservative. Knowing that a lot of it's from fear mongering and misinformation, I can't say I have faith that millennials won't change later on for the same reasons. We're not immune to either of those, we're just better adjusted to handling how it's currently spread.
If I'm wrong in a few decades I'll be grateful though.
Democratic party might just get more conservative to match, since a lot of the effect is anti Republican, not necessarily that millennials are somehow magically going to stay progressive unlike every generation ever.
Possibly yeah. I mean a lot of the Dems currently are rather moderate, which really shows the extremes the Republican party as a whole has slipped to on the scale.
I'm not entirely sure how this would work with our two party system though. Unless the Republican party collapses and reforms then liberal viewpoints would be left without representatives.
There's a bit of the notion of what's progressive and conservative changing with times. You know the adage: old dogs, new tricks.
We millennials will almost certainly have more modern beliefs the generation before us and before that. But I doubt any old generation will match any new generation.
Still I have hope with respect to the rapid loss of interest in establishment religion.
I mean... She's not wrong, but that was really hard to read. Learn to write with words damnit!
all that matters is that we get rid of them.
Yeah watching what happens every time the liberal party gets in charge in Canada will cure that left turn most take from 20 to 30.
Been an asshole since I was born. If I can offend you by eating my KitKat the wrong way I’ll fucking do it.
If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.
We're not in the era of blocky flip phones anymore, please don't ever write like this woman.
Stop yelling at clouds.
True, but the character limitations on tiktok are starting to bring back some features of the T9 lexicon.
Stop using the pile of shit that is tiktok, then
What in my comment implied I use tiktok? I'm merely making an observation of how the platforms with large user bases shape modern language through the conditions those platforms apply to communication.
Right... Is the woman in the room with us right now?
Eh, sometimes you might want to vent about conservatives, without the kind of person who searches for the word 'conservative' to troll anyone criticising conservatives finding your post.
No u
She's not writing an essay, it's stylistic or for ease of typing, terseness, I read it like someone speaking without thinking and I had to go back to see what you were talking about
Which is a horrible choice that instead communicates lack of intelligence.
Nice ad hominem. And now something about the actual topic of her message. You can do it.
I'm a communist, you slug - of course I agree that conservatism is a cancer. The problem is that it's written like she just learned what letters are.
Well... GenZ doesn't like gaslight as well 😉
Clowns arguing about politics like they're both not only slightly different pieces of shit
I'm disappointed every time I see a potentially good argument ruined with kid-pidgin like 'u' and 'r'. At that point, I feel as if it were written in crayon.
The medium matters.
You're just mad because yours doesn't get hard
I think they might just have different ideas and things that have shaped their thinking, values, all that stuff.
Add to that being black or LGBT.
Adding more qualifiers like this just muddies the point
Lmao, lesser evil trap
This is so catastrophically problematic on so many levels. "Conservative" or "right" are valid and legitimate political orientations, just like "left" is. Posts like this that suggest that a political view is wrong are just so closed-minded and fundementally intolerant. These always seem to disregard that there is a disagreement because of ideology and always suggest that "the conservatives'" opinion is of any less value than their own. What the heck?
I mean, while I sort of agree with you on one hand, on the other hand I saw conservatives try to overthrow democracy and successfully overturn roe v wade recently so....
Yeah but extremes on either side of the spectrum try to overthrow democracy. We have to fight the extremes but not the whole political orientation.
I just looked up Roe V Wade (I'm not from the US) and it appears that it was recently overturned by a federal court. A court does not make the laws, so overturning an older case means, as fas as I know, correcting the decision on laws that they have to follow, no matter if they like it or not. If you want a law on abortion, you should get the parliament to pass such a law IMO.
Generally, if someone's methdology is unacceptable, that doesn't invalidate their political views and certainly not the whole political orientation.
Please show me an example of extreme Democrats trying to overthrow the US. This just isn't the case and there is no "both sides" on this issue. The current conservative party in the US is not actually a conservative party. It is fear mongering bigotry and authoritarianism. Full stop. So stop acting like anyone is against the standard "progressive vs conservative" debate. We are outside of that normal.
The democrats are by no means an extreme party. Those are not left extremists.
YOU are outside of that normal. But then, why do you project the disagreement with one party to the "standart progressive vs conservative debate". You can't take one party from one country that you dislike and genelarize that "condervative=bad". That would be like saying "China's social credit system is bad, therefore leftists are bad". No!
By no means do I support the Republican party or their views but claiming conservative to be illegitimate just because your only choice of a conservative party is bad is so strange.
Does the fact that we think even "regular" conservatives have shitty beliefs make you feel better? Do conservatives want to fund public services? Do they want to reduce police funding? Do they want to reduce inequity and tax the rich? Trying to "conserve" the shitty past that we all share is a fucking shit ideology.
I could already imagine what you think of their ideology. The problem I have is with labeling a general political orientation as illegitimate.
They probably don't want to increase their funds. But yeah, public services exist for a reason. How many funds they should get it a debate to be had.
Probably not (?), though would you mind explaining what the whole police defunding demands are about? Is it just currently viewed as a waste of money or what?
They probably dont want to tax the rich more than they currently do, but yeah they would AFAIK still tax them (and tax them more than normal people). Inequality is a moral-based question again. You may find it fair if everyone has the same amount of money, someone else might find it fair that you get more money the more you earn, etc.
Well you say that but in recent memory only one side actually has tried. I don’t think it’s really fair to “both sides” this when one has and one hasn’t.
Its fair no neither side. Just because right extremists do bad stuff where you live and left extremists don't seem to exist or be as prelevant where you live, that doesn't make the whole political direction (e.g. left-leaning, right-leaning) invalid. That just makes extremists bad. That would be like saying "Staling = bad, therefore every non-condervative = bad".
It's not like "the rights" or "the lefts" have tried to overthrow the government. More like: people whose views are so extremely right/left that they are antidemocratic have tried to overthrow democracy.
It definitely does. A conservative in the United States is not the same as a conservative in the EU so in the context of one country, it’s entirely accurate. You can’t project a left/right spectrum globally when each country or group of countries have their own delineations on what constitutes “Liberal” or “Conservative”. One country could have a “conservative” ideology that’s considered entirely “liberal” by another country.
Except they did. “The rights” in the U.S. attempted to overthrow the duly elected president elect and install the opposition into power. It was a comically piss poor attempt, but an attempt it was nonetheless.
... which is why find these generalized statements on political orientations stupid. At least the girl in the post could have said "Republican" or sth.
No, it's not "the rights" who did that. It was a group of people from the right side of the spectrum, presumably the more extreme ones who did that. You can't generalize every condervative person into that group.
(Although the fact that it was actually Trump who called for the attack is highly problematic, even more so the fact that he now is again up as a candidate elected by his party).
I’m positive she wasn’t making a generalized statement globally. She’s referencing the Conservative Party in the country she lives in, probably the United States, which is the Republican Party.
It was the conservatives (The American right) who did that. And while a minority of them were physically there to perpetrate it, they were in fact supported by the majority of conservatives in the country. Several polls have been done about this and while a majority of Americans condemned the attack, the majority of conservatives have defended it.
You’re trying really hard to split hairs, move the goalposts internationally to muddy the argument, and make incorrect assumptions about the demographics involved but that facts remain what they are.
The court does make the laws now because a conservative Congress illegally delayed SCOTUS appointments and rushed others so the conservative president was able to stack it with wildly unqualified conservative justices. Their guy also did an insurrection. 1/3 of the court are appointments from an insurrectionist who tried to bribe a foreign country to smear his political opponent. All conservatives are totally fine with all of that.
What's a SCOTUS appointment if you dont mind me asking?
Seems like a questionable system though, right? Im vaguely familar on how partys in the US can appoint judges for life as soon as others leave...
Isn't this favorable appointing of judges done on both sides, depnding on the governing patty (aka Democrats and Republicans) or what is the scandal about what happened under Trump?
Supreme Court of The United States appointment. Presidents appoint a candidate they like, congress greenlights their ascent to the position.
Oh highly questionable, it's caused a lot of people to rethink the safety of lifetime appointments. But there are avenues to try, someone doesn't have to retire or die, the number of SCOTUS judges can be raised and then you can appoint new judges, but then so can the next party and so on so forth, or at least they tell us that the threat of 'the other side' packing the courts is too much of a danger for their own party to pack the courts
It is done on both sides, except both sides haven't had an equal chance to make appointments due to life span of existing judges and the then Senate Majority Leader (senator who is appointed the head of that ruling body when their party takes a majority in that body) in 2008 blocked all Supreme Court appointments that came up for all 8 years of the Obama administration. That was Mitch McConnell, and he, and his party, blocked appointment of new judges by just never allowing the motion to be voted on, as the Republicans held the senate 2 years into Obama presidency (when some seats opened) and as such their majority leader gets to decide the docket of what will be voted on in the senate and he chose to never once allowed SCOTUS appointee motions to reach the floor.
Thanks, this clears things up for me
Its easy to have this opinion when you're not a US citizen, you don't have the same frame of reference as we do for a conversation involving our own government. Especially considering that in the US left/right dont even exist, we have right/far right, there is no left in our country, this is just how the conversation is framed so we can trick ourselves into thinking that there is a more progessive party to vote for. When an American says "right" or "conservative" they mean the people who identify as such in our country, those people are actually extremely far right, usually Christian nationalists. We essentially have a government that is setup so your vote is for "The continuing unrestricted rampage of capitalism on the working class" and "were going to see what a dictatorship by an orange dipshit is like"
I've now informed myself on the Republicans and the Democrats views and policies and the Republucans indeed seem quite right, more so than I thought. My stance on this post is still the same but I guess this helps to put things into perspective...
"I want a fiscally conservative tax policy" is a valid political opinion.
"I think trans people are grooming kids" "I think the election was rigged" "I think women shouldn't have total control over their bodies"
Those are not. Those are bigoted bullshit beliefs hiding as political opinions.
Your entire comment actually boils down to "you are bad for not tolerating the intolerant!" ...and you can fuck all of the way off with that.
Agreed. This is a terrible take. Is basically implying "both sides are the same", a staple in the ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM group but they're not. Blue side wants to maintain the status quo and maybe, very slightly, make light progressive changes (but again very small changes) while red side is trying to destroy social safety nets (cutting socials security), women's autonomy (roe vs wade and more) and democracy itself (Jan 6). That's not to mention that Republicans for the most part built their ideology based off hate. Their drive comes from reactionary outrage.
Democrats: "Stop genocide now!"
Republicans: "We won't stop the genocide!"
Centrists: "Can't we find a middle ground here? How about just a little genocide?"
Republicans: "I guess we're okay with that."
Democrats: "No!"
Centrists: "Wow, so much for the tolerant left!"
Democrats: Genocide ok over there.
Republicans: Maybe some here too though.
Centrists: How 'bout them Red Wings?
Me: You all suck.
You: "BoTh SiDeS"
Me: You too.
Thank you for saying it.
Thats just an insult, not an actual belief.
How is this not an opinion? Do you think the elections in russia are unquestionably fair?
Nobody has total control, that was never up for debate, it's just a question of where you draw the line. You can't consume heroin, for example. If you're holding a baby in your arms, you dont have the "total freedom" to drop it. Similarly, it's a valid ethical debate if and when an embrio is concidered another living being. You might say "control over their body", someone else might say "it's not their body, it's that of another human".
Your entire comment assumes that "the others" are intolerant and you are the tolerant saint. The truth is, what is tolerant depends on your morals and is thus subjective. Tolerating other's opinions is a fundemental requirement for a democracy, with the exception of opinions that are anti-democratic. Not tolerating a whole political view, however, has nothing to do with that. That would just means being an intolerant asshole and claiming that one's own political beliefs are the only ones that are correct.
Trans are grooming: It is an insult and LITERALLY what the US conservatives are running on. You need to understand this.
Elections: We aren't talking about Russian elections.
Abortions: Read "A defence of abortion" by Judith Jarvis and get back to me. But before you do, stop acting like "you don't have the right to drop a baby onto the floor!" is remotely in the ballpark of an apt comparison. Fuck off with that nonsense too.
Yeah but you said that doubting the validity of elections is not an opinion. We weren't talking about any country's elections specifically.
I never claimed it to be but dont you realize that it refutes your claim that one should have "total" control over one's body? This showd that its a matter of where you draw the line. Its not black and white. Can you kill a baby after it was born? Two minutes before? A month before? 6 months before?
This entire thread is clearly about us politics. Furthermore, the idea that you can use THE ENTIRE GLOBE to cherry pick any scenario is absurd and you know it. Stop trying to play that copout game and own the fact that we are discussing American politics.
"I never said it was but it totally was!" So no to that as well. Argue in good faith or fuck off.
To make sure you can't interpret this the wrong way:
To sum it up for you:
Dude you just did it again. You can't say "I didn't compare them" and then immediately say how they compare. You aren't this stupid, stop acting like it.
Generational tribalism makes me fucking cringe. Take your dumbass nomenclature and get to fuck.
Edit: Yeah, you're right, let's divide up as much as we can because we know how useful that is!
If being a liberal means having that atrocious spelling and grammar then consider me a conservative
I like stereotyping too
Where is the stereotype?
Wasn’t that the part where they made fun of a black and/or young person for not speaking good? In fact I’ve seen that twice in the top level replies so far.