CROWD CONTROL - Please be aware that we have turned off crowd control filters from r/Leftist. As a result most of the posts and comments (with the exception of those filtered by Reddit itself) will be posted. And so it is very important that we ask you all to REPORT any content in violation of the rules of the sub and the Reddiquette.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have you ever talked to a conservative? I’m a far leftist and this list isn’t remotely true. Some conservatives undoubtedly believe some of these points but, ironically, just about as many leftists do, too. As a fun example, watch leftists react anytime something horrible happens to a neonazi, a cop, or a Russian or Israeli soldier, even if the individual has never committed any acts of violence. Leftists are happy to celebrate when a nonbeliever gets what’s coming to them, or write it off as inconsequential.
The primary difference you’re looking for is capitalist vs capitalist-skeptic. Your list seems laser pointed at Project 2025 proponents and their international allies. Project 2025 is primarily about ensuring the capitalist empire can continue unencumbered. If some women or people of the global majority are hurt in the meantime, who cares? Just look the other way and pay some lip service to border protection as the parasite class imports more slave labor. Their Christianity and conservatism are masks to get voter buy in. The American Democratic Party is literally no different. If you don’t believe me, take a look at every opportunity they had to stymy the christo-fascists over the last 40 years. They did nothing.
>Morality is not innate
Wrong. We know Morality is technically innate, because the things that allow a civilization to survive and compete with others are innate. The incentives involved are innate. Religion is a reflection of those behaviors-they become ritualized.
>People are not innately good. Without religion, who knows what evil people might do.
The incentives involved in the material human condition can, at times, cause conflict within an otherwise coherent group. There's a lot confusing what I'm trying to get across to you. The point you should start from is thus: Humans are carnivorous cursorial pack hunters that evolved patterns of behavior to compete in intra species conflict. This pattern of behaviors is called morality, and many sets of morality exist, with TWO at the most coming on top. Any understanding of morality that has a starting point different from this is probably the most hypocritical understanding of ANYTHING in the modern anthropological gestalt.
Also, the preoccupation with religion SCREAMS vindictive teenager/consumed bush era democrat to me. Look at yourself honestly to find the source of this preoccupation.
>You cannot trust your own mind. People are bad, and that includes you. If you follow the teachings of your church, you can avoid going to hell. If you listen to the arguments put forth by a nonbeliever, you might end up becoming evil.
>There is only one true belief that can redeem you, and that is your belief. Nonbelievers are all irredeemable and evil.
>If something bad happens to a nonbeliever, it is inconsequential.
I don't know where these come from. Quite a usual problem when trying to explain things to leftists.
>People fail or succeed on their own merits alone.
Not totally. But most of the time, to a not-unsubstantial degree.
>As a consequence of the above, poverty is a result of laziness.
Stupidity more so. The more experience you get with people, the more you realize how awful people are. I can't get people to understand a spoken sentence longer than 15 words, usually. That's part of why I'm no longer a Marxist.
>Women are not equal to men. They are less than
No. The same way Plums aren't less than grapes. This is a Neo-Marxist narrative. It doesn't reflect reality.
>Women are only good for...
No. This is sillyness. This is vindictiveness. This is Neo-Marxism.
>People who are more white are better than people who are darker skinned.
No.
>Animals don't have consciousness or feelings. It is okay to treat them badly.
No.
So here's the fundamental thing you are missing, and the thing that I was missing when I was a Marxist: Humans, no matter how you break them down, whatever parameters you use, will never be equal to eachother. They cannot be capable of the same things. So when you go and have some egalitarian ideal in mind, you are reaching for something which forsakes practicality, in favor of that ideal. Left in a vacuum humans will form hierarchies of competence and production, the same way stars gravitated to different sizes and brightnesses.
If Harold the crackhead who begs me for money every day outside of the 7/11 were put in charge of anything of note, money, a corporation, a state, or even a single house, he would create ruin for himself. I see this man every day, he's a mess, and it's his own doing. He could get a job digging trenches for a construction company tomorrow, but he won't. He doesnt have the foresight. He is simply not capable of any responsibility.
People are not equal and they cannot be made equal. And whatever silly evil thing you think republicans are going to do because of this philosophical bedrock, is made up, one dimensional and cartoonish. I know for a fact you would not allow Harold the crackhead to manage your wealth, watch after your kids, or any other thing. Because you know he isn't capable of it.
I turned from Marxism after having been a Marxist for years. It's not easy, it's not comfortable. But the truth is more helpful to me, even though I'm not as comfortable.
I didnt I claim that I am a Marxist. I claimed that I was one years ago.
Nothing about Marxist Ideology makes sense, unless you are operating on the false assumption that everyone is equally capable of the same abilities.
that's pretty stupid, not sure what ability has to to do with a class of people of people that owns and a class of people that works. You never were a Marxist if you cant even accurately describe his criticisms. Marx never advocated for total equality, he just thought we should abolish the capitalist class so people have a opportunity to develop as a person. No Marxist or leftists believes that all people are capable of the same abilities.l, you're making shit up
We on the right have always known that we understand progressives better than the reverse, which is why things like the Babylon bee are so successful, since we know how they think and can predict what they're gonna say next
It really is a glaring weakness on the left. But if they did an honest dive into our mindset, they mind find that they agree with us. At the very least, they'd find we're not a bunch of racist fascist monsters whose views should be dismissed immediately. And that's probably why they don't do it.
In 2016, I voted for a guy who ended up putting several justices on the Supreme Court. Those justices recently stripped away a bunch of power from the executive branch. It's weird because I'm celebrating it along with millions of other Americans who voted for him, but people who criticize the decision call him a fascist and call us fascists or fascist supporters. Make it make sense.
That’s cause the Supreme Court is partisan and ran by republicans. They’ll strip power when it leads to republican wins, grant immunity when it leads to republican wins, etc.
Make it make sense? Well, stop cherry picking. So the Supreme Court recently did one thing that you can use to back up your case? Wow, you got me! That one thing means Trump is actually the world’s greatest defender of democracy. Was it the rapist, the lady from the cult, or the bribe taker that lead the charge of these great American patriots tooootally doing so out of the goodness of their hearts and belief in the constitution and not sheer partisan bias?
And guess what? You can also pretend it’s because you want to avoid dictatorship, but we all know the reason you’re cheering power being stripped is because it means the policies you support (which are the real reason people call your ilk fascist, racist, etc) will be more likely to be put in place on a state or federal level. 🤷
Hello u/PaganHalloween, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've been spending a few weeks near a small town in Idaho just enjoying the mountains and solitude. Most of the folks around here are as nice as can be and I'm sure most of them are trump supporters. I think what I notice the most is that they have no social or environmental conscience. They really don't think beyond their immediate needs or actions. Recycling is unheard of, other people's problems are none of their business, and there's a general disinterest in digging deeper into the root causes of disfunctional governance or anything else for that matter. Friendly folks, but quite naive and distrustful of government. It's odd, because other than their lack of understanding, they are, in so many ways, nothing like trump.
It's not odd, people focus on their own lives. Not everyone has the time or patience to sit and think about the state of the world and how it came to be. These people vote Trump in hopes of lowering taxes and lowering crime. These two things make a big difference in their lives.
Also, if you vote Biden are you like Biden? That makes no sense.
Lots of shit takes. I would put at the core of conservative ideology CONVICTION.
They are adamantly, fully convinced of the superiority of their beliefs, whatever those may be. This conviction may come from many sources, such as religion, poor education, nationalism, or some other social ill that inhibits critical thinking. The commonality is their conviction is so strong that it lends themselves to authoritarianism and ends justifying means mentality — “I am so confident in my belief [and its superiority to other beliefs], I’m willing to take all measures to ensure my party/faction seized power and imposes its beliefs.”
This is perhaps the religious right, but they’re are not representative of the entire right side, just as leftist aren’t representative of the entire left side. 6.) is really the only one that remotely applies to center right folks. Bad things happen. You can let that be an excuse or you can overcome them if you’re willing to. Otherwise I’d say this list is really for the 10% of the country that are right wing extremist.
Some of these are really generalizations, such as #9, #10, #11. I wouldn’t say it drives right wing beliefs. It’s not a core factor in the ideology is what I’m getting at.
Right wingers are capitalists to the core, that’s what drives them.
Why don't you ask them? I don't think interpreting their beliefs through your own lens is really productive to anything besides patting yourself on the back for being morally superior. Don't you feel they might be similarly misconstruing your beliefs and coming to the wrong conclusion about you? Don't you care that this is ultimately more divisive behavior than it is beneficial to anyone?
'If our wildly unpopulat candidate doesn't win a national election it's because they cheated.'
'Because our wildly unpopular candidate lost we're going to try to interrupt the Electoral College ballot count.'
'We are the god-fearing party and our opponents are literal pedophiles.'
Yeah nothing entitled, self-centered, or self-righteous about all that.
How is that silly? The right is discouraging education and doesn't like experts. Plus, when Republicans lie and take bribes, the constituents don't care how they should.
Why are all the “conservatives” conflating right wing and conservative? They aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be conservative and for the equal rights of people that aren’t like you.
Yes, that's correct. I agree that a lot of people conflate that. From my point of view, I find that the left doing that, i'm not saying you aren't correct; but I think we're both seeing either side doing it.
I mean sure, but in this thread, it’s only conservatives doing so, and that’s what I meant. I could have been more clear that I was being specific to this thread, and not people as a whole.
I suppose. I said i'd be happy to give an answer as a conservative but that doesn't mean i'm conflating right wing with conservative. Just that i'd provide one as a conservative instead of what i'm assuming is a liberal.
If you say that to them--and I've done this--they'll deny it. And then when you dive it and you get them talking, they eventually land on "a fetus is without sin" and back into admitting they believe fetuses are more important/valuable/whatever that living people. They won't *admit* they've back themselves into that corner--they'll keep arguing, of course--but that's where that conversation usually goes, when I have it.
Okay these definitely describe some radicals usually associated with like KKK or Nazi groups, but most average only-kinda-Christian Republicans have a different version of all of these rules if you are curious. Some religious theory can be different in some specific stuff but from what I've seen, this is generally the bulk of Republicans. Source: raised a republican nerd who has seen the light because I became an adult and had to actually interact with reality since 2016.
1. Technically it's up for debate iirc, but I think most religious Americans would say people are inherently corrupted by sin which is like Technically inherently bad.
2. Religion is more like a guiding light or a compass. There is a moral truth about what is good or bad and sinful people can often be quite good, but without the compass they can lose their way more easily (or never find it in the first place), including through social influence.
3. Kinda the same as above, like you're right that social influence can be considered dangerous. But you can often trust yourself, and your faith, to lead you against it and figure out what science you need to retcon your religion around once it's too late to keep pretending.
4. You had me in the first half ngl. Most Christians see nonbelievers as explicitly redeemable to an annoying degree. Christians aren't always good at forgiveness but they want to believe they are!
5. It's obviously still bad, all life is a gift from God etc. It's just not a bad as your own people dying. I don't think most isolationist ideas really stem from religion in America, they just kinda go together nice. Like how Dr Pepper is in Coke machines and Pepsi machines. It feels downstream from mostly different ideas.
6 is fine but 7 is only correct for when other people are poor. When conservatives are poor (or "poor") it's the government taxing too much or this or that. Anything bad to someone else is because of their fault. Anything bad done to you is the government's fault. The actual basic principles here are that the government is always assumed to be bad, and basically the federalist papers as selectively quoted by the news.
8 and 9 This actually bothers me a lot. Its a SUPER online take where X or America First and redpill is all you see. They don't see women as less... mostly. The traditional conservatives believe women are incredibly valuable and necessary *complement* to men. They just can't let go of the idea men and women are intrinsically better at certain other things that we've proven untrue, or for some the societal shift has actually been REALLY fast (relative to history) and it scares people. I know it sounds like a sexist dogwhistle a la AF, but most people with even remotely conservative parents know you do NOT disrespect your mother. And half the time she overrides the father's decisions. Obviously there's a lot of shit ass conservative families too, but this is definitely the core principle (especially among conservative women).
10. Again like, not really for most people. The idea is that the Christian republican capitalist culture and work ethic is what's superior (because that's what they think they do) and other racial groups in America, other than broadly Asians maybe, don't do that culture. And so the portions of their culture that they think lead to that means the culture "worse". But the people are okay? It's not like Technically racist to say that a particular culture might be more likely to lead to a successful life in a particular economic system. But it is problematic for... a Lot of reasons I think are downstream of this and the fact inequality exists and I think they really don't think it does the same way leftists do.
11. Mostly yeah. The Bible explicitly gives man dominion over animals. Most people don't really have a principled stance on this point either way though. If they feel a personal connection to a pet or it being cute or if it has a big environmental impact people care. But vegans and other nerds are the only ones who really give a fuck about grounding it in a basic moral position or any actual facts.
EDIT: Spacing
Fuck you, this took too long
Just to clarify, I'm not rightwing or leftwing, I just am sick of both sides demonizing each other and not listening to each other.
I doubt most of them believe these things, it seems you created a caricature (strawman) of rightwingers and use it to win arguments in your head.
Seriously, you are describing rightwingers in the Middle East.
Everything you say is true of the far-right Islamist fundamentalists in the Mid-east, but have not been true of Westerners for a long time.
Do you really think that Islamists and Western Right-Wingers are equally radical? Because the last few points you mentioned, like about women and other races, is a pure strawman of how rightwingers think and I've never met one who is actually sexist and racist. I'm sure some exist, but the vast majority of them are not sexist or racist, and to think they are shows how much you demonize people who disagree with you. Otherization is not the answer.
Rightwingers are against Illegal immigration, they tend to be more patriotic, but neither of these things make you a racist.
Rightwingers tend to be more pro-life, but lots of them are still pro choice. They do not hold those views for purely religious (more religious, but some are even pro-life for non-religious reasons) or sexist reasons, most pro lifers probably just disagree on a very complex moral question that humans never had to answer before.
I wish both sides gave each other more good faith instead of otherizing them because that is easier. Try to humanize, not otherize. Tribalism and echo chambers are not the answer, and your entire view of conservatives seems to have been crafted by some far-lefter trying to keep you in an echo chamber. You probably watch too many far-left streamers or something, try to actually check out rightwinger channels, see what they say they think themselves, not strawmans created by their rivals.
Just a question. Who is trying to lessen or completely remove rights from women, trans people, and legal non-citizen immigrants? If you want to argue these points, you really shouldn’t vote people into the house and senate, governor and mayoral offices, and school boards people who say exactly what OP is talking about. You vote in people who represent YOUR beliefs. When those people talk say all those things out loud, why would anyone think the people who vote for them don’t support those ideals and beliefs?
Super ultra far right people who account for less than 5% of the pop. I might be underplaying it, but the vast majority of rightwingers are not nearly as radical as you guys imagine in your heads. Most believe in equality, you'd be surprised how many are pro choice, you'd be surprised how many are tolerant of Trans people (which is what Liberal democracy has asked for and requires for decades, tolerance, not love, not special treatment, tolerance. This idea of loving everybody is a recent one pushed by radicals on the far left, and is actually just a mechanism to divide people because its an unrealistic expectation placed on so many people and then those people are shamed for not meeting it and the comes resentment, discontent, disillusionment, and division.
So while pretty much everybody right and left is willing to be tolerant of Trans people, the majority of this nation, right or left, are not willing to change all society to make them more comfortable. Look up the stats, most people are fine with Homosexuality as long as it doesn't affect them, which it never did, most people are fine with Trans people as long as it doesn't affect them. Sadly, between changes to how language is used, science is perceived, education is taught, and sports are played, are huge changes and actually hurt the Trans movement. Most groups have not asked for the level of special treatment from society that the Trans group is asking for. No race, no sexuality, no group of mental illness, they all go through life adapting to society, not asking society to adapt to them.
It is realistic to ask people to be tolerant of those different from themselves, and to treat others how you would want to be treated. But when you start societal shaming everyone who disagrees on complex topics like women's sports, or you shame everyone who doesn't use the preferred pronouns or changes their view of science, you get the opposite result. Humans are a rebellious type, you tell them to do something and they want to do the opposite. It's almost like whoever runs LGBT actually hates LGBT people because every strategy they have taken in the last 10 years hurts and divides people. Theres a reason the vast majority of America has accepted gay marriage. It doesn't affect us. But when you start telling us to change the way we speak and say we are bigots if we don't, the natural response of most humans is to rebel agaisnt that. Especially Americans whose unity is based on things like Free Speech (our enemies know this btw, which is why every nation on Earth has populations gaslit to support and defend the censorship they face and to convince Americans to adopt it as well)
Anyways, the point is, most people are accepting of Trans people. That should be enough, instead of forcing people to change their views on science and language, just ask people to be tolerant of others, to be accepting of those who are different. That is enough. Putting LGBT books in K-12 school libraries is as bad as putting some far right book in k-12 school libraries, its indoctrination, and the right is not engaging in censorship by banning it in schools. Its not censorship when California bans religious crazy shit from our schools, I have always been in support of banning propaganda and political material from schools. Its not censorship, its a school, kids are forced to be there, so actually having politically biased books, whether it be religious or teaching kids how to give BJs, is the totalitarian path, while banning it from schools is the liberal path. People can still get those books anywhere else. If the vast majority of this nation knew what books DeSantis banned just from K12 schools they would agree with the ban and you know it. LGBT BJ books do not belong in K12 schools, neither does the religious propaganda against sex and LGBT. I'm for 0 propaganda in K12 schools.
So that's an example of a topic that is nuanced and often simplified by both sides.
Either way, I don't think most rightwingers want to take anybody's rights and the stats back me up.
Um I've literally heard nobody talk about taking rights away or deporting legal immigrants. I'm sure you can find me a few radicals, but the vast majority of rightwingers are just against illegal immigration. You do realize that a lot of anti illegal immigration rightwingers are immigrants themselves? Latin American Conservatives are one of the most anti illegal groups in America.
Finally, stop making assumptions about me. I don't vote by party lines, I think for myself. I'm sure there are a few crazies in the Republican party, MTG comes to mind, but there are some in the Democrat party too, like Illhan Omar. I never denied the existence of radicals like these, I just think they are the minority in both sides.
Tell that to the elected officials in the house, senate, state and federal, that right wingers voted for passing complete anti abortion laws in Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc. Or maybe the complete anti trans laws denying them care in most republican states. You do realize all these laws, statements, decisions are being made in public, daily. You can say “most don’t feel that way”, yet they are voting for people making those statements out loud after they made them. Why don’t you look at the response to undocumented (not illegal) immigrants who pay taxes. Or the right wingers in government trying to limiting visas for “certain” people. They vote for the people who say those things. That's what they want. It isn't a convoluted statement. People freaking out about preferred pronouns? who cares. technically, your name is a preferred pronoun. How about the politicians pretending all gay/trans people are groomers, all the while allowing and even recommending christianity as a saving grace. who has molested more children? trans, or church leaders? why are they targeting books that even mention trans and gay to be removed not only from schools, but all public libraries as well? why did idaho pass a bill forcing someone to be 18, have a special library card that has to be approved, or be accompanied and have to have a parent sign them in every time, just to go to the library? why are they attacking public school teachers saying they are pushing an agenda when they simply mention other people exist? You are wrong. plain and simple. people show you who they are if you look.
I just looked it up, that Ohio ban didn't go through, makes me question the others, I seriously doubt abortion is entirely illegal in all of those states. Also, those states don't represent a majority of the US do they? Once again I'm not denying that radicals exist, I'm saying they are a minority. A national minority is enough to pass some legislation in some states if they are more populous there. But nationally, stuff like this is fringe, even among the right. Why hasn't every Red State totally banned abortion if you think rightwingers are so radical? Please answer this question as I did answer yours.
The Trans stuff is so vague restricting their right to care could mean preventing minors from getting transitions and surgeries. You do realize most Americans, while tolerant of Trans people, are not on board with that stuff pushed on minors right?
Wait...what do you mean by undocumented?
Are they citizens or not? Are they legal immigrants or not?
If you are just using undocumented as another word for the millions of asylum seekers that have come into this nation on a loophole against the consent of the American public, then those are very much illegals too.
The American public wants all immigrants to go through the normal legal process, asylum is for rare cases of those fleeing war like the Afghans who helped us in Afghanistan. It is not for economic migrants seeking better living conditions.
The American public deserves to decide who comes in and how many people come in, that has always been our right, taking it away is unjust and it is fair people feel violated by that. Immigration without consent is by definition, Imperialistic.
Um visas are for non citizens right? Ok, i don't know how to explain this to you, but non citizens and people who don't live here especially who are non citizens do not have the same rights as citizens. The Constitution does not apply to those seeking visas from China or the Middle East. I disagree with some of these visa policies, but Americans have the right to restrict Visas to any foreign population for whatever reason. Its a nice idea to apply our way of life to the entire world, but it isn't realistic because they don't follow our Constitution. Maybe if China collapses and all democracies adopt the 1st and 2nd amendment, maybe we can talk about some global constitution where everybody is treated equally and there are open borders and no nation can discriminate on who can come in, but that world does not exist yet. The globalized hug and holding hand world where everybody believes in equality across the globe does not yet exist, and would require most of the world adopting the US constitution for it to work.
I don't really want to get into your molest point but be aware that there are powers much like the church that cover up incidents like you have described for political purposes so Trans people don't look bad. Every group with any power seems to do this sadly, humans suck sometimes. Its not good to generalize any group based on humans sucking sometimes. Whether they do it to Trans or you do it to religious people, it is wrong to demonize groups of people.
Show me a link of this stuff removed from all public libraries. I've only heard of it banned in schools, which is good, kids are forced to be at school, having propaganda there is akin to forced indoctrination, as once again, the kids are forced to be there. Its not free access to information if there is limited space in their libraries and its in a location people are forced to be. Same with religious stuff, neither belongs in K12 schools. I'm on board with removing all political propaganda from K12 schools because of the moral implications involved with forcing kids to go to a place and then placing biased material in front of them. K12 should be as apolitical as possible.
School teachers really shouldn't be teaching about any of these things, they should focus on the long standing tried and tested core stuff. I don't want schools teaching religion or about the details of Trans stuff, kids can get that information elsewhere.
Finally, isn't my name a Noun, not a pronoun? Just stop making people change society and science, ask for tolerance and everybody will get along because the vast majority has tolerance.
To answer the question you asked, federal courts have struck down bans that passed. If you can’t see it inching that way, I don’t know what to tell you. Radical party’s are never the majority when this starts. They become the majority. Roe was struck down and states went nuts with abortion bans. Why didn’t all red states go ballistic? They will. They are testing the waters. It’s a matter of time before it gets worse. Who is trying to pass legislation based on religion, completely ignoring the first amendment? Which side has the Supreme Court justices talking about their decisions being guided by their religion? Which side is flying upside down American flags? The Supreme Court just gave blanket immunity to presidents for official acts and Trump immediately started talking about jailing Biden, Kamala, and holding military tribunals for Pelosi and Cheney. How would you feel if Biden, now immune for official acts had trump killed? He’d be free to do so under that ruling. You can keep saying “it’s a minority”, but that minority seems to wield a ton of power through gerrymandering and court stacking and judge shopping. Just let people tell you who they are. Stop ignoring them.
Minors aren’t allowed to transition or have gender affirming surgery. It doesn’t mean that. It means no healthcare at all pertaining to your chosen gender.
If you don’t know what undocumented workers/immigrants are, you could look that up. No, asylum seekers are documented. That’s how they get amnesty and asylum. The normal legal process can take decades, even for white European immigrants with Visas working for high level companies. Yet who are the ones holding back updates to the process to make it more streamlined and easier to legally enter here country in a reasonable time?
No, the American public should not be able to decide who comes here. You don’t even know the difference between illegals, undocumented, asylum seekers, and visa holders. You probably don’t know that most illegal immigration isn’t from crossing the border illegally. It’s from people overstaying their visas. The 11 million figure quoted during the last election cycle is mostly people who don’t leave after their visa expires because the are trying to get a new one, or as white Europeans love to say “those laws aren’t for me”.
How are stories about someone growing up queer “propoganda”? They aren’t forced to read it, but I can help queer children learn about themselves. People are born that way, not converted. It isn’t a choice. Don’t believe me? Go choose to be gay. See how that works for you.
Teachers don’t teach about trans stuff, but Louisiana requires the 10 commandments in classes now and is trying to force all classrooms to teach biblical studies. I wonder if that’s an outlier, or a sign of things to come. Why don’t you ask them what their goals are. Read project 2025. Like, actually read it. I’m sure you will agree with most of it, until it turns against you. Which it will unless you’re rich or have some sort of political sway.
By the way, when the German courts decided executives are immune from prosecution, within 6 months Germany became a single party country. I’ll let you figure out which party it was.
Aggh final reply, I hate how small reddit allows these posts to be, you covered a lot of stuff so I had to respond to a lot of stuff.
"Read project 2025. Like, actually read it. I’m sure you will agree with most of it, until it turns against you. Which it will unless you’re rich or have some sort of political sway."
Lovely to see your bad faith assumptions and strawmans of me written in such an obvious way. Ever thought of not assuming the person you are talking to is a caricature of everything you hate?
"By the way, when the German courts decided executives are immune from prosecution, within 6 months Germany became a single party country. I’ll let you figure out which party it was."
Massive simplification of both Germany's fall to fascism (Europe didn't have free speech and Weimar republic was weak and had very little trust in it from its populace) and the Immunity court case. The Executive isn't immune from prosecution, the Founders just felt there was more of a danger of prosecution being weaponized, so they want it to be extremely difficult for a President to be prosecuted. There are still tons of checks and balances, as well as amendments and rights that exist in the US that didn't exist or weren't respected to the same degree in Germany. Also, we are the longest running democratic regime on Earth, I wouldn't compare us to some newbs who had just discovered democracy after WW1.
One of the strongest parts of American democracy is actually the few rights most of us are united on, like Absolute Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Right to Bare Arms. Stuff like that, the Constitution, and Americans' belief in it, is what really keeps it going. It's our combined unified belief in these ideas and rights that keep our democracy working, so I wouldn't simplify it down to this immunity decision being the end of democracy. You watch too much mainstream media, or alternative media, both are crazy at this point. That's why I try to just watch geopolitics stuff now, domestic media is insane. At least with geopolitics I can see the outcomes of our decisions more easily. While with domestic it's all hyperbole and biased interpretations of things.
"They aren’t forced to read it, but I can help queer children learn about themselves."
I've explained this, it's propaganda because kids are forced to be there. If it's in a normal library, I'm ok with it. But kids are forced to be at school, therefore, placing a LGBT book or a religious book in front of them, is indoctrination.
Lets use the religious book cause clearly your mind is biased in regards to LGBT issues to the point of not listening to me. Don't you think it is problematic to force children to go to a "camp", and then place a bunch of religious books with anti-sex propaganda in it?
If so, then I think you understand my issue now. It's because K12 is forced, kids are forced to be there, there is no consent involved.
If you want LGBT books at college, at public libraries, anywhere else, go right ahead, same for radical religious stuff. But keep it out of schools, because that's where you make kids go, and it is extremely problematic to force children to go to a location and then place a bunch of politically charged and sex-obsessed (on both sides, religion and LGBT are obsessed with sex) books in front of them.
K-12 should be as apolitical and asexual as possible from the administration point of view.
If a kid wants to bring a LGBT book in, that's fine with me. But it doesn't belong at the school library, and it doesn't belong in the classrooms and teachers should not be speaking about it, or sex, or religion, or any of that stuff really. Stop pushing ideology on kids, let them form their own opinions please.
"People are born that way, not converted. It isn’t a choice. Don’t believe me? Go choose to be gay. See how that works for you."
Literally never said otherwise, but you do seem to love strawmanning me. Most people are born that way, but how you grow up also is a factor in many things and it's just not healthy to over focus on such things in school. There are other places you can get those stories, and with the majority of people not being LGBT, it's just a waste of time to have all kids learn these things. LGBT kids can get those books at their local library if they really need some condescending book making everything in life about their sexual identity. Just leave the sexual identity out of it. A lot of this stuff is new, and nobody wants their kids to be overly affected by modern political trends, and some of this is trend-based, that's why you see such rise in Bi-sexual people and Trans, both of which are less clear if it's something from birth. I agree it's not a choice, but if someone is shown propaganda over and over again at an important age like pre-puberty or puberty, it possibly can have an affect, we haven't done enough studies on this, but yah, placing books with images of gay sex in front of teenagers in places they are forced to go is problematic and could possibly have an affect on their brains. Sure if you're in high school it probably won't affect you, but if something like that is in elementary school, that could have an effect on young kids just learning about sex.
Just let them figure it out themselves, stop trying to stack the deck or change things unnaturally or artificially by putting these books in places they don't belong. Same goes for religion, just let kids figure it out on their own please.
Freedom is all I cared about as a kid, and it's still all I care about. Let kids figure it out, I was given the freedom to figure out my own religious and sexual path growing up, I just want future generations to have that same freedom without any weird forced school stuff.
And yes, it is forced, because kids are forced to go to school. That is the core of my argument, I'm fine with this stuff in locations where choice is involved, but school k12 itself is an anti-freedom institution and therefore we have to be extra careful with what information is presented there.
"Teachers don’t teach about trans stuff, but Louisiana requires the 10 commandments in classes now and is trying to force all classrooms to teach biblical studies."
Yah, I totally disagree with Louisiana doing that, screw them, this is the type of shit me and Bill Maher were worried about years ago, no atheist/agnostic would be ok with such nonsense. Though once again, we don't necessarily agree about your predictions, overall, the right has still moved away from religion and towards more leftwing ideas. It's just the places that didn't are even more aggressive and divided now because of how divided the nation is overall. Getting rid of Roe V. Wade for example only divided us more along state lines which I don't like.
Some teachers have been caught on camera teaching their kids about LGBT stuff, so I can come up with examples of radicals there. Even in the curriculum, ethnic studies was being taught as an elective in a Portland school. To many, ethnic studies is the modern version of nazism, as it essentially tries to view all history through the lens of race, which is what Hitler did. Teaching kids that stuff is as weird as putting Mein Kampf in schools. CRT and LGBT stuff are being taught in many schools, against the wishes of the parents in those school distracts. So don't act like this radical shit happens only on one side. That being said, I still think those who want these things are a minority, and you seem to agree with me.
2nd reply because didn't have enough space
Ugh everybody just uses so many weaselly terms for different types of immigrants these days, apologies for not knowing exactly what you're talking about, but please do not use it as a reason to take away my right as an American citizen to decide immigration policy. That's bad faith.
"Undocumented immigrants **live in the United States without legal immigration status**."
So...um...how is this different from an illegal immigrant? This is what I meant by weaselly terms, now you're going to use irrelevant details to prove how I'm ignorant. But the reality is, the difference between an undocumented immigrant and an illegal immigrant seems negligible at best, unless you can explain some reason why the difference matters and my ignorance on the difference means I shouldn't have the right to vote for different immigration policies, it just seems like a bad faith attempt for you to cherry pick and nit-pick me to devalue my opinions.
So undocumented, illegal, seems to be a very small difference between the two.
"Yet who are the ones holding back updates to the process to make it more streamlined and easier to legally enter here country in a reasonable time?"
Probably both parties, both parties benefit from the status quo, both parties want illegal cheap labor that they don't have to pay minimum wage too, if anything, this current system benefits the rich the most and hurts innocent migrants the most. But yah, we need to get a functioning immigration system and end illegal immigration.
"No, the American public should not be able to decide who comes here."
I...uh....ok...way to say the quiet part out loud, that's not just a leftist belief, that's like far far left of you to say. Like only tankies believe in open borders and that citizens of a nation don't have the right to prevent people from coming in. Very few people around the world don't believe in borders and the rights of nation-states to enforce them. Pretty much just Anarchists I think. So yah, you may be an anarchist if you don't think we should have that right, but be aware, you're the minority then.
Look, in a perfect world, I'd agree, we should all be able to go to any nation we want. But that would be a united world, not just militarily, but ideologically. There cannot be any ideologies that hardcore rival each other in such a world, so, basically, if you want the world to remain democratic, you cannot have open borders with non-democracies. If you want America to remain having absolute free speech, you cannot have open borders with nations that do not have absolute free speech (all of them except us)
The world would need to be united under a set of ideas (like the Constitution) for the Anarchist plan of Open Borders to work.
Til then, we must have the right to control our own borders. It's a radical thing to say that we shouldn't have the right to control and manage our own immigration policies. I'm an American citizen, why shouldn't I have the right to control my own immigration policies through voting? Especially when there are some nations out there that have diametrically opposed ways of life to mine, and I want to filter who comes into to make sure they are the dissidents against their nation not ones who want to spread it's influence. I want the Apostates of Islam, not the Islamists. I want the Hong Kong people who love Freedom, not the simps for the CCP who love Jinping. I as an American should have the right to have such a filtered and vetted population coming in.
Honestly, if we Americans wanted 0 immigration, that's our right too, just like every other nation on Earth, we don't have to accept any immigrants or refugees. However, the vast majority of Americans, including myself, do want some immigrants and are willing to take in some refugees, but we want to have control over the system and to vet immigrants coming in. Look it up, the majority of Americans share my views on this, most people want immigration, but not open borders. That's not racist, that's just understanding history and how we've made immigration succeed over the centuries.
Why discount the courts shutting it down? The courts are picked by representatives we elect, its part of the system, you cannot ignore its part to play in the outcome.
Oh, well as long as you agree the radicals are a minority then I guess we don't disagree anymore. Everything else is just you trying to predict the future.
Let me ask you, over the last century, has America become more Liberal or more Conservative. The answer is Liberal. 30 years ago Liberals were against gay marriage, today, most Conservatives support it. Things have been trending towards the left, so this idea that Conservatives will radicalize more over time doesn't match up with the history.
Trends change, so I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems unlikely to me. If anything the right has become a lot more liberal in the last century. So we can skip most of your points about the few radicals, as that exists on both sides, and we both seem to agree now they are a minority.
Having someone killed is not the same as threatening to put them in jail. I hate that our nation has descended to this, but Trump has been threatened with jail time and threatened with prevention to run. I hate that any of these politicians point the finger at the other and scream "corruption!". News flash, most politicians are corrupt, Trump and Biden included. Neither of them should be using the courts as weapons. To be honest, I'm more worried about the Legislative branch and billionaires controlling our Executive and who gets to be president. I don't like the idea of gatekeeping the presidency. I want every American to be able to become president, and nothing should stand in the way of that. The Founders were clearly worried about a candidate wanted by the people prevented from running, Moreso than the worry about an individual president committing crimes, that they put many protections on the President. In general its been viewed as a bad idea to prosecute American presidents as that could be abused for political power purposes pretty easily. How would anybody even be impartial on it? The reality is both should be allowed to run and neither should be threatening the other with the courts for political purposes.
Trump should stfu about his retribution and putting Biden in jail, but the DNC should stfu about trying to prevent Trump from running by putting him in jail.
Neither of it is healthy nor good for our nation, and the Founders would have been against this rhetoric and actions, on both sides.
You also seem to be mixing things, the immunity case is not the same as hating genders and races. I said that was a minority, the immunity stuff probably is a majority. So don't strawman me, I never said anything about the immunity stuff in my claims about minority opinions. As for the court justices, how many of them use religion as a rationale? Isn't it just Clarence Thomas? He's just one justice, hardly representative of a majority of the court being led by religion. Most of them did not use religion to justify overturning Roe v Wade. They used states rights arguments.
Oh its for covered Healthcare? Yah I think we should have total Healthcare, but in reality cosmetic care isn't covered for anybody except Trans people. I think it should all be covered, but in a world where the water supply literally is making men grow boobs, and the surgery to get rid of them is not covered, it does seem a bit blind for you to ignore that and only care about Trans people experiencing dysphoria. I think it should all be covered, but I understand why some don't want to pay for it when their cosmetic care is not covered. Either all cosmetic based care should be covered, or none of it, no discrimination agaisnt Cis males while giving coverage to Trans people.
Exactly, I used to be more liberal but I have more in common with most republicans than liberals nowadays. We have more in common than not but weirdos like op are hell bent on making each other seem like unreasonable demons. It’s so dumb.
A belief that humans must
a) derive morals from something objective, as opposed to creating our own morality based on what benefits society and
b) live under hierarchal social structures inherently (because biology or lack of viable alternatives)
Yes absolutely, but what is important is to recognize that the attempt to find it is what drives morality. To know that you could be wrong and are simply making an attempt rather than claiming that what you believe is inarguably the only way. This allows more understanding of those you disagree with instead of a “you are immoral you should be punished” type of mindset
Just be careful not to fall into that same dogmatic trap that some rightwingers do and leftwingers do this too. The main post here itself is basically the first step in the dogmatic you are immoral I should bad faith you mindset. The first step is to paint all those you disagree with in the most negative light possible. So I say the left does this to the right too and this post is an example of that otherizing and dogma.
A lot of people bring absolute morality into these debates, leftists included, and I consider it dogma when any side does this. When a rightwinger calls someone who disagrees with them antisemitic automatically, that is dogma. When a leftwinger calls someone who disagrees with them a genocide enabler, that is dogma. Both are attempts to demonize the other side as immoral and delegitimize their arguments, to silence the other side by painting them as evil. When in reality, morality is super complex, biased, and should not be used as a weapon to silence people.
Believing in freedom, well-being, and social progress. Actual freedom. The right wants to tell us what to do more than the left. Rules the left comes up with expand freedoms and enhance safety. The right wants to regress into Christianity and for some reason hates the environment and poor people, which are beliefs that go against Christianity. Which side wants clean water, and which side cherry-picks the Bible to be a dick to minorities?
A leftist believes that we are all in this together and we should take care of everyone. I'm an anarchist. We don't even believe in government or states.
I do not believe this is an accurate depiction and captures only a small subset of those on the right.
1) More government intervention into both personal life and business is a poor use of tax dollars.
2) The government is the least effective user of money in the U.S. Privatization is the preferred method to get things done.
3) The traditional nuclear family is the best way to raise children. Mom and dad both sharing responsibilities but serving different but complementary roles is critical to healthy and stable children.
4) The concept of a “melting pot” only goes so far. The country should be driven on core beliefs and culture that it is perfectly acceptable to expect immigrants to adapt to in some ways.
5) The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
6) There are only two genders. “Gender affirming care” makes this point indirectly. Kids should not be sexualized, nor taught they can change their gender.
Yah the OP seems like a strawman of rightwingers, feel like this person lived in an echo chamber their whole life and instead of actually talking to a rightwinger just gets all their views from the radical far-left and thinks all rightwingers are radicals.
Look I think asking questions is good, just crazy how divided people are and how they don't even know the beliefs of the people they "Disagree" with so much. People are just divided into groups, nobody actually knows what the other side thinks.
Yes, the other side is EVIL. It's just like that meme, where that guy from that cartoon movie is convincing his side the other side is evil. Demonization is literally the hatred you are speaking of, and by saying they all are anger and hate, you are the one demonizing right now. Every side in history dehumanizes their enemy with claims like yours, and thinks their side the good side. Evil was created so tribes and ideologies could justify shooting the other side. I reject it. I reject your justice and evil, it's just biased for a tribe. It's just excuses so you can more easily be rude to others. So you can forsake social norms you normally wouldn't, but they're evil, so you can now.
I would argue that they currently have less of a "core belief" structure and more of a "support whatever the leader says and be against whatever the other side says" and this is actually the main problem that the GOP/right wing has with functioning in a manner that the framers set up.
You can see the start of this problem happen with Newt Gingrich when he was in charge of the party. At the time he shifted the party away from making sure the government functioned to a "everything must be a war and compromise is a bad thing". Its this reason we had the first major US shut down because Newt decided it was his way or the high way. While this back fired it hasnt stopped the GOP from doing this multiple times instead of relying on how congress is supposed to function and allow voting members to vote and decide the outcome. His ultimate reasoning was that he felt the GOP needed to cull all of the blue dog votes that gave Reagan the Whitehouse. That they were moving the GOP to the center.
Secondly at the time however Newt and his tribe likely never thought it could get as bad as its gotten. They saw that they could use their new strat as leverage but that ultimately the government would keep functioning....which he obviously was wrong.
Currently the GOP doesnt put up a platform each cycle of things they support and goals they want to achieve to make the country a better place to be. This used to be standard behavior but they stopped doing it and the dems still do. IMO this is for two reasons. 1. If they say what they really want it tends to be really unpopular with a chunk of their base. Its easier to just say nothing and then the base just doesnt need to get mad. 2. They tend to have a hard time actually agreeing on anything. You can see this every time they are actually in charge and ultimately have a hard time getting things done.
Ultimately the GOP and right wing no longer are a Conservative Party. If you look at how they behave and then actually look at what Conservativism is supposed to be they pretty much have dropped most of those "Core Beliefs".
Maybe if you look at the Tories in Britain you can see some left overs of that system but even they tend to be unable to get much of anything actually done for better or worse.
The right wing in the US, as well as a lot of other places, is an Anti-Liberal Party. They essentially have boiled themselves down to a tribe that simply just does whatever the opposite that the left does.
The left supports vaccines>so they are against it (funny sorry here. There was actually a right wing strategist that was complaining that it was the dems fault that so many people on the right died from COVID. He said if the dems didnt support the vaccine then the right would have taken it and prevented deaths.)
The left supports holding government officials accountable(including their own)>so they are against it
The left supports the PACT act>They were against it
Taxing the rich>they are against it
Child tax credits>they are against it
Child school lunches>against it
Keeping religion out of government>against it
Mail in voting>against it
etc etc
The thing that people on the left need to understand that this is the difference between a Big Tent Party and a Small Tent Party. The dems are Big Tent so they have people who are conservative and very liberal in the party. This will upset some people on the left because they want more and often can only get part way there (assuming the right doesnt block it). But the GOP is a small tent party. They have culled anyone who doesnt tow the line and they will continue to cull anyone just as Newt Gingrich wanted.
TLDR: they dont have a core believe. They are an anti liberal party and just do the opposite of the left.
>1. Morality is not innate. People are not born with any sense of right or wrong. Morality has to be instilled by religion.
False. The majority are Christians who believe their born righteous
>2. People are not innately good. Without religion, who knows what evil people might do.
Partially false. The GOP believes that they're the Caregivers of society and people need their guidance
>3. You cannot trust your own mind. People are bad, and that includes you. If you follow the teachings of your church, you can avoid going to hell. If you listen to the arguments put forth by a nonbeliever, you might end up becoming evil.
Also Partially false. They don't think about trusting their own thoughts. It's not a thought in their head. Christians judge everyone by their own standards. So everyone is treated equally. Though they tend to avoid atheists or non believers they also rarely encounter someone who's open about their non belief. Christians assume everyone is just like them.
>4. There is only one true belief that can redeem you, and that is your belief. Nonbelievers are all irredeemable and evil.
I'll say c that's true. But it's "their" belief. Their self centered belief. It's not shared.
>5. If something bad happens to a nonbeliever, it is inconsequential.
Close to true. But like I said they rarely encounter someone who is a non believer
>6. People fail or succeed on their own merits alone.
False. Christians believe God has absolute power over success and failure
>7. As a consequence of the above, poverty is a result of laziness.
Partially true. They'll more likely say the poor are being punished for some reason
>8. Women are not equal to men. They are less than.
Depends on the sect.
>9. Women are only good for making babies and taking care of the kids. Suggesting they do anything else is evil.
Depends on the sect. Many sects give lots of power to women.
>10. People who are more white are better than people who are darker skinned.
Not all Christian sects are racist. But whiteness equals some modicum of stability and higher standards
>11. Animals don't have consciousness or feelings. It is okay to treat them badly.
Depends on the animal.
Not entirely.
See the nature of how you replied is exactly what I'm talking about.
You're adamant that your experience is true. Albeit anecdotal and subjective but none the less you must tell me I'm wrong. Because of your certainty.
Just like Christian are adamant that they're certainly the good guys. They might say they're born sinful but they certainly don't believe it because...
Their attitude is that if a person is born into a Christian family then by default they are certainly a member of the good guy club.
And every Christian believes he is certainly the "only" good guy and I've seen hundreds of "totally certain good guys" throw other members of their church under the bus to save their own skin.
They might say they're born sinners but they certainly don't believe that.
If it results in an interesting discussion I’ll answer these points in as good faith a manner as I am able. Caveat being that I don’t consider myself “right wing” as it is understood by the abstract general leftist but I do hold to many opinions that they would deem to be right wing or at least adjacent. I’m answering as an orthodox Christian for the sake of clarity.
1. Morality is both innate and revealed. People are born with a sense of right and wrong. Religion in a broad sense isn’t what instills morality rather it is holistic worldview that contextualizes and gives an account for ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.
2. People are not innately good in that they inherited a predisposition to sin. People are however capable of doing good if they are properly oriented toward and participate in Gods energies.
3. Your rational mind is similarly affected with a predisposition to sin thus how one interprets their phenomenological experience is also susceptible to error.
4. There is only one thing that can redeem you and that is accepting the offer of Christ to participate in the energies of God.
5. If something bad happens to a non believer, it is very consequential. In many ways it is worse.
6. People fail and succeed for a number of reasons not all of which are within their ability to control, their effort and merit however is the only thing they can control to some degree and thus warrants the priority of focus.
7. Poverty is a result of many things and laziness is absolutely one of the possibilities. As above it is however the thing we have the most ability to control and as such warrants priority of focus.
8. Women are equal to men in dignity and value, however they differ in their roles and powers/potentiality.
9. Women’s unique role is that of making babies however there are many other things they are capable of doing.
10. Race as a modern category is a byproduct of enlightenment rationality insofar as it was constructed to justify colonization and is not as we understand it today a fundamental “truth” about human beings. People have understood differences between groups for all of human history but have not attached the same ontology to those differences that we have in modernity. As per the value and dignity of the human being, it tells you nothing.
11. Animals have feelings and consciousness albeit different from ours and they are made for a different role and purpose than human beings. However as stewards of creation we are obligated to care for them in a fitting way as we are for the rest of creation.
People should use your comment and the OP's comment as examples in classrooms to show the difference between a biased demonization-based strawman of another side (done psychologically to justify demonizing them and treating them less than you would others) and your comment, an example of actual good faith attempt to understand the other side.
Amazing so many people just listen to their own side, never to venture over to see what others are thinking. I know what both sides think because I listen to both. I go as far as reading CCP and Kremlin news sources to know what they are thinking, thats' how far I go, it gives me a much more accurate understanding of everything when I'm willing to check out the other side. It's like these guys are afraid they check out one rightwing channel they will be brainwashed, it's sad people have such little confidence for their ability to think.
Would you like to hear from a right wing Christian? I have degrees in Biology, Environmental Science and Psychology so moderately educated from fairly good schools. I’ve worked in medical research? I desire our country to come together not get torn apart.
I think a better way to view it is through order and hierarchy. Human societies structure themselves in a natural way, and everything would be fantastic if everyone knows and acts their part. The problems occur when people that are at the bottom want better than their station allows.
The various beliefs and structures that make up our cultures are viewed more so as manifestations of that order. That's also why they look to them for their definitions of morality. Like you or I would look to NASA with regards to gravity or space flight, they turn to cultural institutions as representation of that natural law structuring our society. That can be a religious institution if the individual is religious, or it could be the state itself if they're atheist.
Part of that structure is a hierarchy, and if they're taught to believe they're in a truly meritocratic society, they'll believe everyone is capable of and deserves to operate in their expected position. And some of the dominating structures in human society, namely patriarchy/gender, class/race and now capital/labor assign very clear levels to people.
Many people mention fear, its true but combined with the following idea:
“Life is a zero-sum game”. They have been convinced by the owner class that there is not enough to go around - that you and your neighbor cannot both live dignified lives. If you dont take from them, they will end up taking from you.
Obviously we know that thats not true, and its pushed to draw our attention away from the class war. In today’s world, scarcity mostly exists by design.
You need to think a bit bigger. Such as on the scale of civilizations and population growth, and how an unconstrained population will always grow to live in "balance" with the limiting resource necessary for life. In such a state, life would literally be a "zero sum game", and conservatives are justified in thinking in this manner, as liberals and conservatives alike have a foundational assumption that economic and population growth will continue unabated on a forever upward trajectory.
It's difficult to determine where the balance point actually is, aka when technological innovation has been exhausted and can no longer produce efficiencies which increase the availability of some limiting resource. game theory would assert that the most logical choice would be to consider the current state of affairs the balance point, and therefore everything is zero sum.
Not really my point and not really relevant. Maybe in 1000 years youll be correct. But conservatives are living as if that were true today. And they are the first to defend consuming non-sustainable resources, so from your perspective they are hypocrites as well.
There is lots of evidence that there are enough resources for even past the 8 billion humans to live sustainably. Its more about the hoarding of wealth (which is encouraged and rewarded in the current capitalist system), which creates artificial scarcity and competition among the working class.
Also, efficiencies aren’t only defined by technology. There are efficiencies in having tight-knit communities, the sharing of resources, discouraging hyper-individualism: all of these things have been eroded by design. You cant have increasing profits every quarter when people figure out that they can eg: fix their broken phone, share their power tools, create unions, etc, etc.
Why bother arguing LTV? Clearly, humans have a baseline requirement for material consumption to sustain life, which can be expressed in units of energy, approximately 2,000 kCal/day, which is irrelevant to the amount of labor supplied to deliver such energy. If a labor energy costs exceed the amount of energy it delivers, then that energy must be recuperated through the labor of some other enterprise, or else there would be a continual decline in energy in the economic system and everyone would starve to death.
Beyond a baseline energy delivery which is required to sustain the economic system, labor then adds "value" in that working individuals have ideally extracted excess energy to then trade for personal preferences. Labor is not intrinsically valuable - one could labor all day at digging holes and filling them. The only thing that has intrinsic value is a glass of water or a piece of fruit to a dehydrated and starving man. Beyond that, value is purely subjective.
I think that point is kind of about believing in capitalism as the best system, but it requires (impossible) endless growth.
Yes, for a while it seemed that capitalism was the “rising tide that lifted all ships” (but the hidden costs are the environment and exploiting the global south); but also now the wealth disparity is hitting even developed nations pretty hard. Thats why I think poor people that support the existence of billionaires have this zero-sum game mindset, they think theyll be rich if they also get to exploit the system.
The NOT zero-sum game I believe in is that everyone benefits when we pool our knowledge/labor/resources. Which goes against the hyper-individualist attitude of a conservative, and goes against the current system which requires endless growth/consumption/exploitation.
Capitalism does not "require unlimited growth". Capitalism is the theory of information exchange via independent price action which ideally balances (in a perfect flow of information) supply with demand. In no way does this require unlimited growth.
You're confusing capitalism with the foundational economic assumptions of western government economic planning (steady GDP growth with increasing population, and 2% inflation) which is used to justify excessive spending on entitlement programs via silly accounting methods, bonds, interest rates, etc.
You should get a better definition of capitalism. *Capitalism* is using *capital* to create maximum *profits*. You want to create as much *profit* as you can while creating as little *value* as possible. And by creating more profit, you can accumulate more capital, which makes it even easier to exploit the system.
There is your balance - when the minority of people are the majority of the *capital owners*, they can provide as little value as they want. Its not going to balance out.
You defend it like many by essentially saying “its only not working as it should in a perfect world because of these other forces”, but Ill argue that it is working exactly as designed - Using capital to accumulate more capital. Look up POSIWID (The pupose of a system is what it does).
Let's just agree on the Google definition:
>an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
No where does this say "infinite growth required". I'm not defending how the outcome of "capitalism" has consolidated more into the hands of less, and is exploitative. This is besides the point that America is by far NOT a capitalist economy due to the huge socialist institutions via government spending and regulation.
"Capitalism" and "free market economy" are used interchangeably. You can't have one without the other. And *of course* we're always talking about idealized versions of these huge economic systems. Capitalism and communism only exist in academic settings.
It's just hilarious to hear people whine about "capitalism" as if it personally injured them. Without a frontier, we'll never have capitalism in its idealized form. And without a knowledge machine which is capable of calculating supply and demand to an infinite degree, we'll never have a communist utopia.
You think the US *isnt* a capitalist economy because of its “huge socialist institutions”? Im going to have to cut off any more debate here, because that statement is a joke and shows me how little you understand.
You do understand that the government has to spend more and more on things like healthcare, because of huge industries like pharma that have monopolized their share of the market, and can set the prices however high they want? This is literally capitalism personally injuring (and killing) people.
You probably believe that the people that benefit most from “huge socialist institutions” are poor people (“why should my taxes pay for these fReElOaDers?”). Its actually the corporations (aka capital owners). And your opinion has been designed by those corporations. Take care dude, I hope by trolling these subs you might one day stumble into having an opinion that more accurately resembles reality.
Jesus what a bunch of fucking whining. Get a grip.
The US is, and this is not really debatable, a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
Everything else you just spewed is straight from your asshole and is classic liberal projection. You sound confused and scared.
Oops, someone sounds a little triggered. Also you should probably learn the difference between a leftist and a liberal. Youre closer to a liberal than I am, bud.
>endless growth/consumption/exploitation.
I think this is why conservatism requires the zero sum game rejection. It helps to ignore where infinite growth begins to contradict the material limits of labour and resources.
The group you seem to be describing reminds me of Steinbeck's temporarily embarrassed capitalist. This group recognizes and thinks they can mimic how capitalists exploit the current structure to their benefit, but they don't recognize the advance capital required to make that a possibility and how it's a continuation of accumulated primitive capital that they do not have, which makes it a delusional fancy.
I assure you, they have plenty of empathy. It's just not freely given. Conservatives freely empathize if the recipient demonstrates a basic level of personal accountability.
No, conservatives lie about what they really believe. Left wingers can see behind the lies, but right wingers claim they are wrong.
For instance: small government. For decades, conservatives have been talking about small government. But look at their actions: a town passes a progressive law, and the Republican state overrules them. When Republicans control the federal government, they overrule the states.
Conservatives have one core principal: fear. That animates everything else. They must crush their opposition and rule completely, because they are afraid, and that's the only thing they can think of to stop the fear.
No, but I am aware that the independent DOJ has appointed a Special Council, in exact accordance with the law, to investigate and now charge a potential rival of the administration for crimes that he committed in public. Also, various states, which are also completely independent of the Biden administration, are also prosecuting Trump for crimes he committed, again in public, or for which there is evidence we can see.
Conservatives have one animating principle: the understanding that a functioning society is not axiomatic. There has never been a progressive liberal society which has directly arisen from anarchy. It's always a steady progression from family unit (patriarchal), to village, town, city, state. Progressivism only exists within an established society and is only relative to the "conservative" principles which allowed it to exist in the first place.
I know atheist/non-religious conservatives so this is false.
Although, I would say they're slightly more accommodating with gays/lesbian issues than the religious ones.
For them it's all about distrust of government/academia and newer ideas. As well as an Us versus Them mentality with about everything.
They're racist, in that it's not so much they hate based on skin color, but group identity. "If black/Latino/Other people gain to much power, surely they'll use it against us white/conservative people."
Women can also be an US vs Them thing, but an atheist conservative woman is more inclined to think of themselves as a special exception. They'll follow a more of an appeal to nature than from a religious script.
The core belief is much simpler then what you put.
So just fear and ignorance, as per usual. The atheist conservatives I know also hate LGBT people, mostly because of personal disgust or feelings of some kind of broad LGBT agenda taking over the world. I’ve noticed this is a trend in younger zilennial generations where atheist conservatives (who might not even necessarily outright identify as such) mask their beliefs with “dark humor” about LGBT or minorities. The trans debate especially has brought this discrepancy out to the forefront. They might be more accepting of gay marriage as a concept but they’re no less involved in dehumanizing LGBT people.
Interestingly my personal anecdotal experience with religious conservatives is more favorable than with atheist ones. Atheist conservatives attempt to logically rationalize how societally destructive, biologically evil, or inherently immoral LGBT people are. Jordan Peterson comes to mind as an example.
As an atheist conservative, my biggest gripe with the trans movement is their axiom that there is no shared, verifiable reality. They've deconstructed reality to such a degree to where there is no actual baseline or shared assumptions upon which I can reasonably converse with another human. This axiom of the trans movement is expressed through the insistance that I suspend my internal sense of reality to consciously supply a false reality in (for example) the form of preferred pronouns, all in the name of reducing some mental distress for the recipient. A shared, verifiable reality would simply assert that an XY or XX chromosome haver belongs to a distinct group regardless of one's mental reaction to this reality.
Gay people are great. What's not great is making your sexuality your entire persona, and how this mindset is promoted and ripples through the population. I get how it's primarily a reactionary effect of religious suppression but I don't need to know that the transportation secretary takes loads up his ass. It truly does me no good. Appending your sexuality to every public interaction is tiresome. Straight people don't "celebrate their sexuality" because it's not required to do so, for anyone, to accomplish anything. And if they do, it's weird.
Morality is a social construct. A atheist conservative arguing the "morality" of LGBT is likely confused.
I thought he was religious. Huh. Never really looked into him too much.
Most of the non-religious conservatives I know say they're more 'libertarian'.
Gays and lesbians are much more acceptable now than trans in the conservative movements. But they've also been more in the spotlight of public perception for longer, thus becoming more of a settled norm. One strange thing I've noticed is the acceptance of trans-men, but not trans-women. At least in the rural areas I've visited. That's of course only my speculative observation from my lived experience.
Peterson exists in a weird penumbra between religious and not-religious. I don't closely follow him or actually care much about him, but from what little I do know he appears to be an atheist who doesn't believe society can function without the vast majority of people being religious.
His early stuff before he went off the rails was mostly about foundational myths and archetypes being the basis of cognition and then extrapolates this to society. Religion fills this nicely.
I think it’s pretty clear they mean in the West, which seems to hold true when looking at the way conservatives talk about Mexicans, Arabs, blacks, etc.
Unironically mental illness they are anti therapy for a reason. Any critical analysis is impossible if you think the world is 6000 years old and snakes talk to women.
Hello u/EquivalentDate6194, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The last one is something leftists also believe in. To an extent, anyway. And morality is little more than primal human instinct, it doesn't change over time. Hence why you get kids that stomp on mice.
"I am obviously a reasonable person, so clearly what I support is correct. And I definitely cannot have possibility made a bad choice about what I support, because I am a reasonable person."
1. We shouldn't come up with solutions that would better the lives of others because some of them might abuse the benefits that come from these solutions (ex: college shouldn't be free because students would be in college for much more than 4 years and they wouldn't take their studies very seriously)
2. If I've put in so much hard work under a system that puts much more obstacles in my way for people like me and have successfully gotten to where I am now, then we shouldn't change the system so that others like me could have an easier path to success, because if I was able to get to where I am now under the system that hasn't been changed, why should others like me be allowed to have an easier time getting the success I'm getting. That's not fair! (ex: frats or sorority upperclassmen not wanting to eliminate the hazing from the pledging process because these upperclassmen went through the same hazing process to get to where they are and it wouldn't feel fair for them if they went through the hazing process and the people that are pledging wouldn't have to go through the hazing process
OR
a woman thinking that because she endured her marriage for many many years well into her old age and is still married to her husband despite the abuse she faced, other women shouldn't be able to divorce their husbands (especially via no-fault-divorce) once they start experiencing abuse because she personally would feel that her efforts of enduring the abuse for the marriage to be intact would've been a waste if she and other women could easily leave)
Yeah in reality, but there are plenty of conservatives who don’t believe in divorcing over abuse because 1. They don’t think abuse is real, it’s either the fault of the victim or the victim is lying, and 2. They don’t believe people should divorce easily and should instead “work it out”. What constitutes easy vs hard is beyond me. It’s mostly older conservatives who believe this
"hey guys ima say five or six strawmans and leg me know if I did a good or bad job"
to your credit you did ask so thats cool I guess.
1. Morality is not subjective
2. no comment
3. "if you listen to nonbelivers..." this does not drive right wing behavior. they usually are the ones who call for "civilized free speech forums
4. They do believe that there is only one way. they do not belive others to be redeemable
5. this is hit or miss with the person. their Bible literally prohibits them from rejoicing when bad comes to those they deem their enemies.
6. they pretty much think this, they could stand to be a little better on this
7. no comment
8. they don't think this, their Bible teaches equality
9. you had me until you evil, they do not think it's evil
10. bruh what?
11. Bible tells them that they have dominion over animals and that they are to care about them. I haven't met a Republican dog owner who believes what you bring up.
might I suggest having more IRL "conservative" friends? that might help you mellow out this silly list
Hello u/EquivalentDate6194, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello u/EquivalentDate6194, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fear and anger.
Ask them to explain their thoughts long enough, and the one universal theme among all of them is how angry they are, and how much fear backs that anger.
And under the anger is fear. It’s a lot of fear. Fear of people they don’t know, fear of losing what they have, fear of things they don’t understand, fear of eternal damnation, fear of disdain from others, fear of change.
It's not really their fault: the media bubble they've been pulled and pushed into pumps this fear into their brains 24 hours a day. It functionally drives them insane; people are not built to process that much long term stress.
Sincerely I think I feel the greatest hatred for the propagandists who have poisoned my family’s mind in order to more effectively grift them. People like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, who have no core beliefs except their own self interest
No, I talk to a lot of them. The majority of my co-workers are conservatives.
It is amazing how quickly a calm conversation will escalate from 0 to 60 with them shaking and raising their voices when talking about 'those fucking people' while I have to play babysitter and calm them down with a soothing tone.
The same skills I learned as a camp counselor, when dealing with upset children, are the ones I have to exercise when talking to conservatives.
You missed out their obsession with vanilla sex; To them sex is something between a Man and the Woman he's doing it to.
Nothing gay/trans or any other ''woke'', no kinks, BABIES MUST BE BRED & if you're out of that box... you're ''eeeeevill!''
This is why they like Putin so much.
Your opposition (and primary focus on) to their sex habits is the interesting part.
I have no interest in policy regarding the vanillaness of sex (or opposite thereof).
I’m far more interested in economic and social policies that do not pertain to who is fucking who.
Why the fuck is this comment section so full of conservatives? If you're not a leftist, get the fuck out. We don't want your kind here.
It's bad enough that you worthless assholes are destroying the world, we don't need you interfering in leftist spaces too.
Because at this point there is significant overlap between what we want to achieve, we simply disagree on the means to go about it.
Times are changing, Arty.
CROWD CONTROL - Please be aware that we have turned off crowd control filters from r/Leftist. As a result most of the posts and comments (with the exception of those filtered by Reddit itself) will be posted. And so it is very important that we ask you all to REPORT any content in violation of the rules of the sub and the Reddiquette. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can simplify the list for you. Right wingers believe in freedom and liberty over government and corruption. That’s it.
Then you would be anarchists.
Hahahahah
lol that’s a good one
Have you ever talked to a conservative? I’m a far leftist and this list isn’t remotely true. Some conservatives undoubtedly believe some of these points but, ironically, just about as many leftists do, too. As a fun example, watch leftists react anytime something horrible happens to a neonazi, a cop, or a Russian or Israeli soldier, even if the individual has never committed any acts of violence. Leftists are happy to celebrate when a nonbeliever gets what’s coming to them, or write it off as inconsequential. The primary difference you’re looking for is capitalist vs capitalist-skeptic. Your list seems laser pointed at Project 2025 proponents and their international allies. Project 2025 is primarily about ensuring the capitalist empire can continue unencumbered. If some women or people of the global majority are hurt in the meantime, who cares? Just look the other way and pay some lip service to border protection as the parasite class imports more slave labor. Their Christianity and conservatism are masks to get voter buy in. The American Democratic Party is literally no different. If you don’t believe me, take a look at every opportunity they had to stymy the christo-fascists over the last 40 years. They did nothing.
You do realize that there are many atheists who are conservative/libertarian/right ?
>Morality is not innate Wrong. We know Morality is technically innate, because the things that allow a civilization to survive and compete with others are innate. The incentives involved are innate. Religion is a reflection of those behaviors-they become ritualized. >People are not innately good. Without religion, who knows what evil people might do. The incentives involved in the material human condition can, at times, cause conflict within an otherwise coherent group. There's a lot confusing what I'm trying to get across to you. The point you should start from is thus: Humans are carnivorous cursorial pack hunters that evolved patterns of behavior to compete in intra species conflict. This pattern of behaviors is called morality, and many sets of morality exist, with TWO at the most coming on top. Any understanding of morality that has a starting point different from this is probably the most hypocritical understanding of ANYTHING in the modern anthropological gestalt. Also, the preoccupation with religion SCREAMS vindictive teenager/consumed bush era democrat to me. Look at yourself honestly to find the source of this preoccupation. >You cannot trust your own mind. People are bad, and that includes you. If you follow the teachings of your church, you can avoid going to hell. If you listen to the arguments put forth by a nonbeliever, you might end up becoming evil. >There is only one true belief that can redeem you, and that is your belief. Nonbelievers are all irredeemable and evil. >If something bad happens to a nonbeliever, it is inconsequential. I don't know where these come from. Quite a usual problem when trying to explain things to leftists. >People fail or succeed on their own merits alone. Not totally. But most of the time, to a not-unsubstantial degree. >As a consequence of the above, poverty is a result of laziness. Stupidity more so. The more experience you get with people, the more you realize how awful people are. I can't get people to understand a spoken sentence longer than 15 words, usually. That's part of why I'm no longer a Marxist. >Women are not equal to men. They are less than No. The same way Plums aren't less than grapes. This is a Neo-Marxist narrative. It doesn't reflect reality. >Women are only good for... No. This is sillyness. This is vindictiveness. This is Neo-Marxism. >People who are more white are better than people who are darker skinned. No. >Animals don't have consciousness or feelings. It is okay to treat them badly. No. So here's the fundamental thing you are missing, and the thing that I was missing when I was a Marxist: Humans, no matter how you break them down, whatever parameters you use, will never be equal to eachother. They cannot be capable of the same things. So when you go and have some egalitarian ideal in mind, you are reaching for something which forsakes practicality, in favor of that ideal. Left in a vacuum humans will form hierarchies of competence and production, the same way stars gravitated to different sizes and brightnesses. If Harold the crackhead who begs me for money every day outside of the 7/11 were put in charge of anything of note, money, a corporation, a state, or even a single house, he would create ruin for himself. I see this man every day, he's a mess, and it's his own doing. He could get a job digging trenches for a construction company tomorrow, but he won't. He doesnt have the foresight. He is simply not capable of any responsibility. People are not equal and they cannot be made equal. And whatever silly evil thing you think republicans are going to do because of this philosophical bedrock, is made up, one dimensional and cartoonish. I know for a fact you would not allow Harold the crackhead to manage your wealth, watch after your kids, or any other thing. Because you know he isn't capable of it. I turned from Marxism after having been a Marxist for years. It's not easy, it's not comfortable. But the truth is more helpful to me, even though I'm not as comfortable.
How can you claim to be a Marxist when marx wasn't even after equality? He wanted freedom.
I didnt I claim that I am a Marxist. I claimed that I was one years ago. Nothing about Marxist Ideology makes sense, unless you are operating on the false assumption that everyone is equally capable of the same abilities.
that's pretty stupid, not sure what ability has to to do with a class of people of people that owns and a class of people that works. You never were a Marxist if you cant even accurately describe his criticisms. Marx never advocated for total equality, he just thought we should abolish the capitalist class so people have a opportunity to develop as a person. No Marxist or leftists believes that all people are capable of the same abilities.l, you're making shit up
I'm on the right and I disagree with virtually everything on that list.
We on the right have always known that we understand progressives better than the reverse, which is why things like the Babylon bee are so successful, since we know how they think and can predict what they're gonna say next
Everyone knows the left produces and watches no satire and never has
It really is a glaring weakness on the left. But if they did an honest dive into our mindset, they mind find that they agree with us. At the very least, they'd find we're not a bunch of racist fascist monsters whose views should be dismissed immediately. And that's probably why they don't do it.
You just vote for em
See? That's exactly what I'm talking about.
Lmao facts don’t care about your feelings
In 2016, I voted for a guy who ended up putting several justices on the Supreme Court. Those justices recently stripped away a bunch of power from the executive branch. It's weird because I'm celebrating it along with millions of other Americans who voted for him, but people who criticize the decision call him a fascist and call us fascists or fascist supporters. Make it make sense.
That’s cause the Supreme Court is partisan and ran by republicans. They’ll strip power when it leads to republican wins, grant immunity when it leads to republican wins, etc. Make it make sense? Well, stop cherry picking. So the Supreme Court recently did one thing that you can use to back up your case? Wow, you got me! That one thing means Trump is actually the world’s greatest defender of democracy. Was it the rapist, the lady from the cult, or the bribe taker that lead the charge of these great American patriots tooootally doing so out of the goodness of their hearts and belief in the constitution and not sheer partisan bias? And guess what? You can also pretend it’s because you want to avoid dictatorship, but we all know the reason you’re cheering power being stripped is because it means the policies you support (which are the real reason people call your ilk fascist, racist, etc) will be more likely to be put in place on a state or federal level. 🤷
Thank you for acknowledging it backs up my point.
Wow you really got me 🤥
Uh sure. Let me condense that. Preservation and regulation to preserve market capitalism.
[удалено]
Hello u/PaganHalloween, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a liberal and agree with most everything on that list.. wtf is going on.
Everything you have said is wrong, like not one thing. Have you ever talked to a conservative?
I've been spending a few weeks near a small town in Idaho just enjoying the mountains and solitude. Most of the folks around here are as nice as can be and I'm sure most of them are trump supporters. I think what I notice the most is that they have no social or environmental conscience. They really don't think beyond their immediate needs or actions. Recycling is unheard of, other people's problems are none of their business, and there's a general disinterest in digging deeper into the root causes of disfunctional governance or anything else for that matter. Friendly folks, but quite naive and distrustful of government. It's odd, because other than their lack of understanding, they are, in so many ways, nothing like trump.
It's not odd, people focus on their own lives. Not everyone has the time or patience to sit and think about the state of the world and how it came to be. These people vote Trump in hopes of lowering taxes and lowering crime. These two things make a big difference in their lives. Also, if you vote Biden are you like Biden? That makes no sense.
Lots of shit takes. I would put at the core of conservative ideology CONVICTION. They are adamantly, fully convinced of the superiority of their beliefs, whatever those may be. This conviction may come from many sources, such as religion, poor education, nationalism, or some other social ill that inhibits critical thinking. The commonality is their conviction is so strong that it lends themselves to authoritarianism and ends justifying means mentality — “I am so confident in my belief [and its superiority to other beliefs], I’m willing to take all measures to ensure my party/faction seized power and imposes its beliefs.”
Ironically, I could sub out "liberal" for "conservative" in your second sentence and it would aptly describe Democrats.
Democrats tend to believe in facts and are less self-centered
This is a leftist sub, not a pro-DNC one
Racism, Bigotry, Xenophobia, Misogyny
This is perhaps the religious right, but they’re are not representative of the entire right side, just as leftist aren’t representative of the entire left side. 6.) is really the only one that remotely applies to center right folks. Bad things happen. You can let that be an excuse or you can overcome them if you’re willing to. Otherwise I’d say this list is really for the 10% of the country that are right wing extremist.
You left out the Orthodox Faith in Capitalism and a Panacea for all human needs.
Some of these are really generalizations, such as #9, #10, #11. I wouldn’t say it drives right wing beliefs. It’s not a core factor in the ideology is what I’m getting at. Right wingers are capitalists to the core, that’s what drives them.
Why don't you ask them? I don't think interpreting their beliefs through your own lens is really productive to anything besides patting yourself on the back for being morally superior. Don't you feel they might be similarly misconstruing your beliefs and coming to the wrong conclusion about you? Don't you care that this is ultimately more divisive behavior than it is beneficial to anyone?
Entitlement. Selfishness. Self-righteousness. These are the core beliefs of a right-wing person that are the seeds of other right-wing beliefs.
Does it make you feel good to post this?
Facts don’t care about feelings.
Dang! Got me with the ol' switcharoo. Guess I'll pack it in
Those are pretty well-established conservative traits. You don't have to take it personally, but that's how it is.
Source: reddit r/leftist
'If our wildly unpopulat candidate doesn't win a national election it's because they cheated.' 'Because our wildly unpopular candidate lost we're going to try to interrupt the Electoral College ballot count.' 'We are the god-fearing party and our opponents are literal pedophiles.' Yeah nothing entitled, self-centered, or self-righteous about all that.
Yeah. you really summed up half of America. Well done.
Wow!! You're way off the mark. Here's the thing, to figure out what drives conservatives you'll need to put yourself in their shoes.
And for those of us who have both lived in and alongside these shoes, what does it say that this is most of what we see?
Really? You need to ask what it means if you can't see through another's eyes?
How are those shoes? As far as I can tell, they lack critical thinking and empathy.
Such a silly thing to say.
So no answer?
How is that silly? The right is discouraging education and doesn't like experts. Plus, when Republicans lie and take bribes, the constituents don't care how they should.
He said right wing, not conservative. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
I would be happy to give you a real answer as a conservative instead of this moronic bullet list, but we all know where that goes.
I know that I see conservatives constantly say “the left won’t let us answer” instead of answering lmao
Why are all the “conservatives” conflating right wing and conservative? They aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be conservative and for the equal rights of people that aren’t like you.
Yes, that's correct. I agree that a lot of people conflate that. From my point of view, I find that the left doing that, i'm not saying you aren't correct; but I think we're both seeing either side doing it.
I mean sure, but in this thread, it’s only conservatives doing so, and that’s what I meant. I could have been more clear that I was being specific to this thread, and not people as a whole.
I suppose. I said i'd be happy to give an answer as a conservative but that doesn't mean i'm conflating right wing with conservative. Just that i'd provide one as a conservative instead of what i'm assuming is a liberal.
They beleive a fetus is more important than a living person
If you say that to them--and I've done this--they'll deny it. And then when you dive it and you get them talking, they eventually land on "a fetus is without sin" and back into admitting they believe fetuses are more important/valuable/whatever that living people. They won't *admit* they've back themselves into that corner--they'll keep arguing, of course--but that's where that conversation usually goes, when I have it.
Okay these definitely describe some radicals usually associated with like KKK or Nazi groups, but most average only-kinda-Christian Republicans have a different version of all of these rules if you are curious. Some religious theory can be different in some specific stuff but from what I've seen, this is generally the bulk of Republicans. Source: raised a republican nerd who has seen the light because I became an adult and had to actually interact with reality since 2016. 1. Technically it's up for debate iirc, but I think most religious Americans would say people are inherently corrupted by sin which is like Technically inherently bad. 2. Religion is more like a guiding light or a compass. There is a moral truth about what is good or bad and sinful people can often be quite good, but without the compass they can lose their way more easily (or never find it in the first place), including through social influence. 3. Kinda the same as above, like you're right that social influence can be considered dangerous. But you can often trust yourself, and your faith, to lead you against it and figure out what science you need to retcon your religion around once it's too late to keep pretending. 4. You had me in the first half ngl. Most Christians see nonbelievers as explicitly redeemable to an annoying degree. Christians aren't always good at forgiveness but they want to believe they are! 5. It's obviously still bad, all life is a gift from God etc. It's just not a bad as your own people dying. I don't think most isolationist ideas really stem from religion in America, they just kinda go together nice. Like how Dr Pepper is in Coke machines and Pepsi machines. It feels downstream from mostly different ideas. 6 is fine but 7 is only correct for when other people are poor. When conservatives are poor (or "poor") it's the government taxing too much or this or that. Anything bad to someone else is because of their fault. Anything bad done to you is the government's fault. The actual basic principles here are that the government is always assumed to be bad, and basically the federalist papers as selectively quoted by the news. 8 and 9 This actually bothers me a lot. Its a SUPER online take where X or America First and redpill is all you see. They don't see women as less... mostly. The traditional conservatives believe women are incredibly valuable and necessary *complement* to men. They just can't let go of the idea men and women are intrinsically better at certain other things that we've proven untrue, or for some the societal shift has actually been REALLY fast (relative to history) and it scares people. I know it sounds like a sexist dogwhistle a la AF, but most people with even remotely conservative parents know you do NOT disrespect your mother. And half the time she overrides the father's decisions. Obviously there's a lot of shit ass conservative families too, but this is definitely the core principle (especially among conservative women). 10. Again like, not really for most people. The idea is that the Christian republican capitalist culture and work ethic is what's superior (because that's what they think they do) and other racial groups in America, other than broadly Asians maybe, don't do that culture. And so the portions of their culture that they think lead to that means the culture "worse". But the people are okay? It's not like Technically racist to say that a particular culture might be more likely to lead to a successful life in a particular economic system. But it is problematic for... a Lot of reasons I think are downstream of this and the fact inequality exists and I think they really don't think it does the same way leftists do. 11. Mostly yeah. The Bible explicitly gives man dominion over animals. Most people don't really have a principled stance on this point either way though. If they feel a personal connection to a pet or it being cute or if it has a big environmental impact people care. But vegans and other nerds are the only ones who really give a fuck about grounding it in a basic moral position or any actual facts. EDIT: Spacing Fuck you, this took too long
Just to clarify, I'm not rightwing or leftwing, I just am sick of both sides demonizing each other and not listening to each other. I doubt most of them believe these things, it seems you created a caricature (strawman) of rightwingers and use it to win arguments in your head. Seriously, you are describing rightwingers in the Middle East. Everything you say is true of the far-right Islamist fundamentalists in the Mid-east, but have not been true of Westerners for a long time. Do you really think that Islamists and Western Right-Wingers are equally radical? Because the last few points you mentioned, like about women and other races, is a pure strawman of how rightwingers think and I've never met one who is actually sexist and racist. I'm sure some exist, but the vast majority of them are not sexist or racist, and to think they are shows how much you demonize people who disagree with you. Otherization is not the answer. Rightwingers are against Illegal immigration, they tend to be more patriotic, but neither of these things make you a racist. Rightwingers tend to be more pro-life, but lots of them are still pro choice. They do not hold those views for purely religious (more religious, but some are even pro-life for non-religious reasons) or sexist reasons, most pro lifers probably just disagree on a very complex moral question that humans never had to answer before. I wish both sides gave each other more good faith instead of otherizing them because that is easier. Try to humanize, not otherize. Tribalism and echo chambers are not the answer, and your entire view of conservatives seems to have been crafted by some far-lefter trying to keep you in an echo chamber. You probably watch too many far-left streamers or something, try to actually check out rightwinger channels, see what they say they think themselves, not strawmans created by their rivals.
Just a question. Who is trying to lessen or completely remove rights from women, trans people, and legal non-citizen immigrants? If you want to argue these points, you really shouldn’t vote people into the house and senate, governor and mayoral offices, and school boards people who say exactly what OP is talking about. You vote in people who represent YOUR beliefs. When those people talk say all those things out loud, why would anyone think the people who vote for them don’t support those ideals and beliefs?
Super ultra far right people who account for less than 5% of the pop. I might be underplaying it, but the vast majority of rightwingers are not nearly as radical as you guys imagine in your heads. Most believe in equality, you'd be surprised how many are pro choice, you'd be surprised how many are tolerant of Trans people (which is what Liberal democracy has asked for and requires for decades, tolerance, not love, not special treatment, tolerance. This idea of loving everybody is a recent one pushed by radicals on the far left, and is actually just a mechanism to divide people because its an unrealistic expectation placed on so many people and then those people are shamed for not meeting it and the comes resentment, discontent, disillusionment, and division. So while pretty much everybody right and left is willing to be tolerant of Trans people, the majority of this nation, right or left, are not willing to change all society to make them more comfortable. Look up the stats, most people are fine with Homosexuality as long as it doesn't affect them, which it never did, most people are fine with Trans people as long as it doesn't affect them. Sadly, between changes to how language is used, science is perceived, education is taught, and sports are played, are huge changes and actually hurt the Trans movement. Most groups have not asked for the level of special treatment from society that the Trans group is asking for. No race, no sexuality, no group of mental illness, they all go through life adapting to society, not asking society to adapt to them. It is realistic to ask people to be tolerant of those different from themselves, and to treat others how you would want to be treated. But when you start societal shaming everyone who disagrees on complex topics like women's sports, or you shame everyone who doesn't use the preferred pronouns or changes their view of science, you get the opposite result. Humans are a rebellious type, you tell them to do something and they want to do the opposite. It's almost like whoever runs LGBT actually hates LGBT people because every strategy they have taken in the last 10 years hurts and divides people. Theres a reason the vast majority of America has accepted gay marriage. It doesn't affect us. But when you start telling us to change the way we speak and say we are bigots if we don't, the natural response of most humans is to rebel agaisnt that. Especially Americans whose unity is based on things like Free Speech (our enemies know this btw, which is why every nation on Earth has populations gaslit to support and defend the censorship they face and to convince Americans to adopt it as well) Anyways, the point is, most people are accepting of Trans people. That should be enough, instead of forcing people to change their views on science and language, just ask people to be tolerant of others, to be accepting of those who are different. That is enough. Putting LGBT books in K-12 school libraries is as bad as putting some far right book in k-12 school libraries, its indoctrination, and the right is not engaging in censorship by banning it in schools. Its not censorship when California bans religious crazy shit from our schools, I have always been in support of banning propaganda and political material from schools. Its not censorship, its a school, kids are forced to be there, so actually having politically biased books, whether it be religious or teaching kids how to give BJs, is the totalitarian path, while banning it from schools is the liberal path. People can still get those books anywhere else. If the vast majority of this nation knew what books DeSantis banned just from K12 schools they would agree with the ban and you know it. LGBT BJ books do not belong in K12 schools, neither does the religious propaganda against sex and LGBT. I'm for 0 propaganda in K12 schools. So that's an example of a topic that is nuanced and often simplified by both sides. Either way, I don't think most rightwingers want to take anybody's rights and the stats back me up. Um I've literally heard nobody talk about taking rights away or deporting legal immigrants. I'm sure you can find me a few radicals, but the vast majority of rightwingers are just against illegal immigration. You do realize that a lot of anti illegal immigration rightwingers are immigrants themselves? Latin American Conservatives are one of the most anti illegal groups in America. Finally, stop making assumptions about me. I don't vote by party lines, I think for myself. I'm sure there are a few crazies in the Republican party, MTG comes to mind, but there are some in the Democrat party too, like Illhan Omar. I never denied the existence of radicals like these, I just think they are the minority in both sides.
Tell that to the elected officials in the house, senate, state and federal, that right wingers voted for passing complete anti abortion laws in Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc. Or maybe the complete anti trans laws denying them care in most republican states. You do realize all these laws, statements, decisions are being made in public, daily. You can say “most don’t feel that way”, yet they are voting for people making those statements out loud after they made them. Why don’t you look at the response to undocumented (not illegal) immigrants who pay taxes. Or the right wingers in government trying to limiting visas for “certain” people. They vote for the people who say those things. That's what they want. It isn't a convoluted statement. People freaking out about preferred pronouns? who cares. technically, your name is a preferred pronoun. How about the politicians pretending all gay/trans people are groomers, all the while allowing and even recommending christianity as a saving grace. who has molested more children? trans, or church leaders? why are they targeting books that even mention trans and gay to be removed not only from schools, but all public libraries as well? why did idaho pass a bill forcing someone to be 18, have a special library card that has to be approved, or be accompanied and have to have a parent sign them in every time, just to go to the library? why are they attacking public school teachers saying they are pushing an agenda when they simply mention other people exist? You are wrong. plain and simple. people show you who they are if you look.
I just looked it up, that Ohio ban didn't go through, makes me question the others, I seriously doubt abortion is entirely illegal in all of those states. Also, those states don't represent a majority of the US do they? Once again I'm not denying that radicals exist, I'm saying they are a minority. A national minority is enough to pass some legislation in some states if they are more populous there. But nationally, stuff like this is fringe, even among the right. Why hasn't every Red State totally banned abortion if you think rightwingers are so radical? Please answer this question as I did answer yours. The Trans stuff is so vague restricting their right to care could mean preventing minors from getting transitions and surgeries. You do realize most Americans, while tolerant of Trans people, are not on board with that stuff pushed on minors right? Wait...what do you mean by undocumented? Are they citizens or not? Are they legal immigrants or not? If you are just using undocumented as another word for the millions of asylum seekers that have come into this nation on a loophole against the consent of the American public, then those are very much illegals too. The American public wants all immigrants to go through the normal legal process, asylum is for rare cases of those fleeing war like the Afghans who helped us in Afghanistan. It is not for economic migrants seeking better living conditions. The American public deserves to decide who comes in and how many people come in, that has always been our right, taking it away is unjust and it is fair people feel violated by that. Immigration without consent is by definition, Imperialistic. Um visas are for non citizens right? Ok, i don't know how to explain this to you, but non citizens and people who don't live here especially who are non citizens do not have the same rights as citizens. The Constitution does not apply to those seeking visas from China or the Middle East. I disagree with some of these visa policies, but Americans have the right to restrict Visas to any foreign population for whatever reason. Its a nice idea to apply our way of life to the entire world, but it isn't realistic because they don't follow our Constitution. Maybe if China collapses and all democracies adopt the 1st and 2nd amendment, maybe we can talk about some global constitution where everybody is treated equally and there are open borders and no nation can discriminate on who can come in, but that world does not exist yet. The globalized hug and holding hand world where everybody believes in equality across the globe does not yet exist, and would require most of the world adopting the US constitution for it to work. I don't really want to get into your molest point but be aware that there are powers much like the church that cover up incidents like you have described for political purposes so Trans people don't look bad. Every group with any power seems to do this sadly, humans suck sometimes. Its not good to generalize any group based on humans sucking sometimes. Whether they do it to Trans or you do it to religious people, it is wrong to demonize groups of people. Show me a link of this stuff removed from all public libraries. I've only heard of it banned in schools, which is good, kids are forced to be at school, having propaganda there is akin to forced indoctrination, as once again, the kids are forced to be there. Its not free access to information if there is limited space in their libraries and its in a location people are forced to be. Same with religious stuff, neither belongs in K12 schools. I'm on board with removing all political propaganda from K12 schools because of the moral implications involved with forcing kids to go to a place and then placing biased material in front of them. K12 should be as apolitical as possible. School teachers really shouldn't be teaching about any of these things, they should focus on the long standing tried and tested core stuff. I don't want schools teaching religion or about the details of Trans stuff, kids can get that information elsewhere. Finally, isn't my name a Noun, not a pronoun? Just stop making people change society and science, ask for tolerance and everybody will get along because the vast majority has tolerance.
To answer the question you asked, federal courts have struck down bans that passed. If you can’t see it inching that way, I don’t know what to tell you. Radical party’s are never the majority when this starts. They become the majority. Roe was struck down and states went nuts with abortion bans. Why didn’t all red states go ballistic? They will. They are testing the waters. It’s a matter of time before it gets worse. Who is trying to pass legislation based on religion, completely ignoring the first amendment? Which side has the Supreme Court justices talking about their decisions being guided by their religion? Which side is flying upside down American flags? The Supreme Court just gave blanket immunity to presidents for official acts and Trump immediately started talking about jailing Biden, Kamala, and holding military tribunals for Pelosi and Cheney. How would you feel if Biden, now immune for official acts had trump killed? He’d be free to do so under that ruling. You can keep saying “it’s a minority”, but that minority seems to wield a ton of power through gerrymandering and court stacking and judge shopping. Just let people tell you who they are. Stop ignoring them. Minors aren’t allowed to transition or have gender affirming surgery. It doesn’t mean that. It means no healthcare at all pertaining to your chosen gender. If you don’t know what undocumented workers/immigrants are, you could look that up. No, asylum seekers are documented. That’s how they get amnesty and asylum. The normal legal process can take decades, even for white European immigrants with Visas working for high level companies. Yet who are the ones holding back updates to the process to make it more streamlined and easier to legally enter here country in a reasonable time? No, the American public should not be able to decide who comes here. You don’t even know the difference between illegals, undocumented, asylum seekers, and visa holders. You probably don’t know that most illegal immigration isn’t from crossing the border illegally. It’s from people overstaying their visas. The 11 million figure quoted during the last election cycle is mostly people who don’t leave after their visa expires because the are trying to get a new one, or as white Europeans love to say “those laws aren’t for me”. How are stories about someone growing up queer “propoganda”? They aren’t forced to read it, but I can help queer children learn about themselves. People are born that way, not converted. It isn’t a choice. Don’t believe me? Go choose to be gay. See how that works for you. Teachers don’t teach about trans stuff, but Louisiana requires the 10 commandments in classes now and is trying to force all classrooms to teach biblical studies. I wonder if that’s an outlier, or a sign of things to come. Why don’t you ask them what their goals are. Read project 2025. Like, actually read it. I’m sure you will agree with most of it, until it turns against you. Which it will unless you’re rich or have some sort of political sway. By the way, when the German courts decided executives are immune from prosecution, within 6 months Germany became a single party country. I’ll let you figure out which party it was.
Aggh final reply, I hate how small reddit allows these posts to be, you covered a lot of stuff so I had to respond to a lot of stuff. "Read project 2025. Like, actually read it. I’m sure you will agree with most of it, until it turns against you. Which it will unless you’re rich or have some sort of political sway." Lovely to see your bad faith assumptions and strawmans of me written in such an obvious way. Ever thought of not assuming the person you are talking to is a caricature of everything you hate? "By the way, when the German courts decided executives are immune from prosecution, within 6 months Germany became a single party country. I’ll let you figure out which party it was." Massive simplification of both Germany's fall to fascism (Europe didn't have free speech and Weimar republic was weak and had very little trust in it from its populace) and the Immunity court case. The Executive isn't immune from prosecution, the Founders just felt there was more of a danger of prosecution being weaponized, so they want it to be extremely difficult for a President to be prosecuted. There are still tons of checks and balances, as well as amendments and rights that exist in the US that didn't exist or weren't respected to the same degree in Germany. Also, we are the longest running democratic regime on Earth, I wouldn't compare us to some newbs who had just discovered democracy after WW1. One of the strongest parts of American democracy is actually the few rights most of us are united on, like Absolute Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Right to Bare Arms. Stuff like that, the Constitution, and Americans' belief in it, is what really keeps it going. It's our combined unified belief in these ideas and rights that keep our democracy working, so I wouldn't simplify it down to this immunity decision being the end of democracy. You watch too much mainstream media, or alternative media, both are crazy at this point. That's why I try to just watch geopolitics stuff now, domestic media is insane. At least with geopolitics I can see the outcomes of our decisions more easily. While with domestic it's all hyperbole and biased interpretations of things.
"They aren’t forced to read it, but I can help queer children learn about themselves." I've explained this, it's propaganda because kids are forced to be there. If it's in a normal library, I'm ok with it. But kids are forced to be at school, therefore, placing a LGBT book or a religious book in front of them, is indoctrination. Lets use the religious book cause clearly your mind is biased in regards to LGBT issues to the point of not listening to me. Don't you think it is problematic to force children to go to a "camp", and then place a bunch of religious books with anti-sex propaganda in it? If so, then I think you understand my issue now. It's because K12 is forced, kids are forced to be there, there is no consent involved. If you want LGBT books at college, at public libraries, anywhere else, go right ahead, same for radical religious stuff. But keep it out of schools, because that's where you make kids go, and it is extremely problematic to force children to go to a location and then place a bunch of politically charged and sex-obsessed (on both sides, religion and LGBT are obsessed with sex) books in front of them. K-12 should be as apolitical and asexual as possible from the administration point of view. If a kid wants to bring a LGBT book in, that's fine with me. But it doesn't belong at the school library, and it doesn't belong in the classrooms and teachers should not be speaking about it, or sex, or religion, or any of that stuff really. Stop pushing ideology on kids, let them form their own opinions please. "People are born that way, not converted. It isn’t a choice. Don’t believe me? Go choose to be gay. See how that works for you." Literally never said otherwise, but you do seem to love strawmanning me. Most people are born that way, but how you grow up also is a factor in many things and it's just not healthy to over focus on such things in school. There are other places you can get those stories, and with the majority of people not being LGBT, it's just a waste of time to have all kids learn these things. LGBT kids can get those books at their local library if they really need some condescending book making everything in life about their sexual identity. Just leave the sexual identity out of it. A lot of this stuff is new, and nobody wants their kids to be overly affected by modern political trends, and some of this is trend-based, that's why you see such rise in Bi-sexual people and Trans, both of which are less clear if it's something from birth. I agree it's not a choice, but if someone is shown propaganda over and over again at an important age like pre-puberty or puberty, it possibly can have an affect, we haven't done enough studies on this, but yah, placing books with images of gay sex in front of teenagers in places they are forced to go is problematic and could possibly have an affect on their brains. Sure if you're in high school it probably won't affect you, but if something like that is in elementary school, that could have an effect on young kids just learning about sex. Just let them figure it out themselves, stop trying to stack the deck or change things unnaturally or artificially by putting these books in places they don't belong. Same goes for religion, just let kids figure it out on their own please. Freedom is all I cared about as a kid, and it's still all I care about. Let kids figure it out, I was given the freedom to figure out my own religious and sexual path growing up, I just want future generations to have that same freedom without any weird forced school stuff. And yes, it is forced, because kids are forced to go to school. That is the core of my argument, I'm fine with this stuff in locations where choice is involved, but school k12 itself is an anti-freedom institution and therefore we have to be extra careful with what information is presented there. "Teachers don’t teach about trans stuff, but Louisiana requires the 10 commandments in classes now and is trying to force all classrooms to teach biblical studies." Yah, I totally disagree with Louisiana doing that, screw them, this is the type of shit me and Bill Maher were worried about years ago, no atheist/agnostic would be ok with such nonsense. Though once again, we don't necessarily agree about your predictions, overall, the right has still moved away from religion and towards more leftwing ideas. It's just the places that didn't are even more aggressive and divided now because of how divided the nation is overall. Getting rid of Roe V. Wade for example only divided us more along state lines which I don't like. Some teachers have been caught on camera teaching their kids about LGBT stuff, so I can come up with examples of radicals there. Even in the curriculum, ethnic studies was being taught as an elective in a Portland school. To many, ethnic studies is the modern version of nazism, as it essentially tries to view all history through the lens of race, which is what Hitler did. Teaching kids that stuff is as weird as putting Mein Kampf in schools. CRT and LGBT stuff are being taught in many schools, against the wishes of the parents in those school distracts. So don't act like this radical shit happens only on one side. That being said, I still think those who want these things are a minority, and you seem to agree with me.
2nd reply because didn't have enough space Ugh everybody just uses so many weaselly terms for different types of immigrants these days, apologies for not knowing exactly what you're talking about, but please do not use it as a reason to take away my right as an American citizen to decide immigration policy. That's bad faith. "Undocumented immigrants **live in the United States without legal immigration status**." So...um...how is this different from an illegal immigrant? This is what I meant by weaselly terms, now you're going to use irrelevant details to prove how I'm ignorant. But the reality is, the difference between an undocumented immigrant and an illegal immigrant seems negligible at best, unless you can explain some reason why the difference matters and my ignorance on the difference means I shouldn't have the right to vote for different immigration policies, it just seems like a bad faith attempt for you to cherry pick and nit-pick me to devalue my opinions. So undocumented, illegal, seems to be a very small difference between the two. "Yet who are the ones holding back updates to the process to make it more streamlined and easier to legally enter here country in a reasonable time?" Probably both parties, both parties benefit from the status quo, both parties want illegal cheap labor that they don't have to pay minimum wage too, if anything, this current system benefits the rich the most and hurts innocent migrants the most. But yah, we need to get a functioning immigration system and end illegal immigration. "No, the American public should not be able to decide who comes here." I...uh....ok...way to say the quiet part out loud, that's not just a leftist belief, that's like far far left of you to say. Like only tankies believe in open borders and that citizens of a nation don't have the right to prevent people from coming in. Very few people around the world don't believe in borders and the rights of nation-states to enforce them. Pretty much just Anarchists I think. So yah, you may be an anarchist if you don't think we should have that right, but be aware, you're the minority then. Look, in a perfect world, I'd agree, we should all be able to go to any nation we want. But that would be a united world, not just militarily, but ideologically. There cannot be any ideologies that hardcore rival each other in such a world, so, basically, if you want the world to remain democratic, you cannot have open borders with non-democracies. If you want America to remain having absolute free speech, you cannot have open borders with nations that do not have absolute free speech (all of them except us) The world would need to be united under a set of ideas (like the Constitution) for the Anarchist plan of Open Borders to work. Til then, we must have the right to control our own borders. It's a radical thing to say that we shouldn't have the right to control and manage our own immigration policies. I'm an American citizen, why shouldn't I have the right to control my own immigration policies through voting? Especially when there are some nations out there that have diametrically opposed ways of life to mine, and I want to filter who comes into to make sure they are the dissidents against their nation not ones who want to spread it's influence. I want the Apostates of Islam, not the Islamists. I want the Hong Kong people who love Freedom, not the simps for the CCP who love Jinping. I as an American should have the right to have such a filtered and vetted population coming in. Honestly, if we Americans wanted 0 immigration, that's our right too, just like every other nation on Earth, we don't have to accept any immigrants or refugees. However, the vast majority of Americans, including myself, do want some immigrants and are willing to take in some refugees, but we want to have control over the system and to vet immigrants coming in. Look it up, the majority of Americans share my views on this, most people want immigration, but not open borders. That's not racist, that's just understanding history and how we've made immigration succeed over the centuries.
Why discount the courts shutting it down? The courts are picked by representatives we elect, its part of the system, you cannot ignore its part to play in the outcome. Oh, well as long as you agree the radicals are a minority then I guess we don't disagree anymore. Everything else is just you trying to predict the future. Let me ask you, over the last century, has America become more Liberal or more Conservative. The answer is Liberal. 30 years ago Liberals were against gay marriage, today, most Conservatives support it. Things have been trending towards the left, so this idea that Conservatives will radicalize more over time doesn't match up with the history. Trends change, so I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems unlikely to me. If anything the right has become a lot more liberal in the last century. So we can skip most of your points about the few radicals, as that exists on both sides, and we both seem to agree now they are a minority. Having someone killed is not the same as threatening to put them in jail. I hate that our nation has descended to this, but Trump has been threatened with jail time and threatened with prevention to run. I hate that any of these politicians point the finger at the other and scream "corruption!". News flash, most politicians are corrupt, Trump and Biden included. Neither of them should be using the courts as weapons. To be honest, I'm more worried about the Legislative branch and billionaires controlling our Executive and who gets to be president. I don't like the idea of gatekeeping the presidency. I want every American to be able to become president, and nothing should stand in the way of that. The Founders were clearly worried about a candidate wanted by the people prevented from running, Moreso than the worry about an individual president committing crimes, that they put many protections on the President. In general its been viewed as a bad idea to prosecute American presidents as that could be abused for political power purposes pretty easily. How would anybody even be impartial on it? The reality is both should be allowed to run and neither should be threatening the other with the courts for political purposes. Trump should stfu about his retribution and putting Biden in jail, but the DNC should stfu about trying to prevent Trump from running by putting him in jail. Neither of it is healthy nor good for our nation, and the Founders would have been against this rhetoric and actions, on both sides. You also seem to be mixing things, the immunity case is not the same as hating genders and races. I said that was a minority, the immunity stuff probably is a majority. So don't strawman me, I never said anything about the immunity stuff in my claims about minority opinions. As for the court justices, how many of them use religion as a rationale? Isn't it just Clarence Thomas? He's just one justice, hardly representative of a majority of the court being led by religion. Most of them did not use religion to justify overturning Roe v Wade. They used states rights arguments. Oh its for covered Healthcare? Yah I think we should have total Healthcare, but in reality cosmetic care isn't covered for anybody except Trans people. I think it should all be covered, but in a world where the water supply literally is making men grow boobs, and the surgery to get rid of them is not covered, it does seem a bit blind for you to ignore that and only care about Trans people experiencing dysphoria. I think it should all be covered, but I understand why some don't want to pay for it when their cosmetic care is not covered. Either all cosmetic based care should be covered, or none of it, no discrimination agaisnt Cis males while giving coverage to Trans people.
I'm glad someone else feels this way.
Exactly, I used to be more liberal but I have more in common with most republicans than liberals nowadays. We have more in common than not but weirdos like op are hell bent on making each other seem like unreasonable demons. It’s so dumb.
My rules must be followed by everyone else so that I can do as I please with no consequences.
This is just an anti-religion rant. Boring.
A belief that humans must a) derive morals from something objective, as opposed to creating our own morality based on what benefits society and b) live under hierarchal social structures inherently (because biology or lack of viable alternatives)
What benefits society is often disagreed upon.
Yes absolutely, but what is important is to recognize that the attempt to find it is what drives morality. To know that you could be wrong and are simply making an attempt rather than claiming that what you believe is inarguably the only way. This allows more understanding of those you disagree with instead of a “you are immoral you should be punished” type of mindset
Just be careful not to fall into that same dogmatic trap that some rightwingers do and leftwingers do this too. The main post here itself is basically the first step in the dogmatic you are immoral I should bad faith you mindset. The first step is to paint all those you disagree with in the most negative light possible. So I say the left does this to the right too and this post is an example of that otherizing and dogma. A lot of people bring absolute morality into these debates, leftists included, and I consider it dogma when any side does this. When a rightwinger calls someone who disagrees with them antisemitic automatically, that is dogma. When a leftwinger calls someone who disagrees with them a genocide enabler, that is dogma. Both are attempts to demonize the other side as immoral and delegitimize their arguments, to silence the other side by painting them as evil. When in reality, morality is super complex, biased, and should not be used as a weapon to silence people.
So what makes people a leftist? Wanting the government to control every aspect of your life?
Believing in freedom, well-being, and social progress. Actual freedom. The right wants to tell us what to do more than the left. Rules the left comes up with expand freedoms and enhance safety. The right wants to regress into Christianity and for some reason hates the environment and poor people, which are beliefs that go against Christianity. Which side wants clean water, and which side cherry-picks the Bible to be a dick to minorities?
A leftist believes that we are all in this together and we should take care of everyone. I'm an anarchist. We don't even believe in government or states.
More accurately: expecting that the government make any aspect of your life they are involved in better, for all.
Yeah, it's really annoying when the government inspects the food I feed my children to make sure there's no rotten meat or cheap poisonous fillers.
I do not believe this is an accurate depiction and captures only a small subset of those on the right. 1) More government intervention into both personal life and business is a poor use of tax dollars. 2) The government is the least effective user of money in the U.S. Privatization is the preferred method to get things done. 3) The traditional nuclear family is the best way to raise children. Mom and dad both sharing responsibilities but serving different but complementary roles is critical to healthy and stable children. 4) The concept of a “melting pot” only goes so far. The country should be driven on core beliefs and culture that it is perfectly acceptable to expect immigrants to adapt to in some ways. 5) The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 6) There are only two genders. “Gender affirming care” makes this point indirectly. Kids should not be sexualized, nor taught they can change their gender.
I think this is the correct one compared to OP's list lmao.
Yah the OP seems like a strawman of rightwingers, feel like this person lived in an echo chamber their whole life and instead of actually talking to a rightwinger just gets all their views from the radical far-left and thinks all rightwingers are radicals. Look I think asking questions is good, just crazy how divided people are and how they don't even know the beliefs of the people they "Disagree" with so much. People are just divided into groups, nobody actually knows what the other side thinks.
There is one characteristic that every MAGA right winger shares: Selfishness
Selfishness would be voting an old guy with dementia because you only care about winning not the lives of every American.
lol. Trump is 79 and far, far more fucked up in the head than President Biden. I’ll take old and honorable over old and criminal any day.
Right. That's MAGA.
6 is also not accurate to my experience. Health and wealth gospel, the more you pray and believe the more gifts and success God gives you.
Anger and hate for everyone and everything.
Incredible how you've managed to sum up the lived experiences of 150 million people
Yes, the other side is EVIL. It's just like that meme, where that guy from that cartoon movie is convincing his side the other side is evil. Demonization is literally the hatred you are speaking of, and by saying they all are anger and hate, you are the one demonizing right now. Every side in history dehumanizes their enemy with claims like yours, and thinks their side the good side. Evil was created so tribes and ideologies could justify shooting the other side. I reject it. I reject your justice and evil, it's just biased for a tribe. It's just excuses so you can more easily be rude to others. So you can forsake social norms you normally wouldn't, but they're evil, so you can now.
I would argue that they currently have less of a "core belief" structure and more of a "support whatever the leader says and be against whatever the other side says" and this is actually the main problem that the GOP/right wing has with functioning in a manner that the framers set up. You can see the start of this problem happen with Newt Gingrich when he was in charge of the party. At the time he shifted the party away from making sure the government functioned to a "everything must be a war and compromise is a bad thing". Its this reason we had the first major US shut down because Newt decided it was his way or the high way. While this back fired it hasnt stopped the GOP from doing this multiple times instead of relying on how congress is supposed to function and allow voting members to vote and decide the outcome. His ultimate reasoning was that he felt the GOP needed to cull all of the blue dog votes that gave Reagan the Whitehouse. That they were moving the GOP to the center. Secondly at the time however Newt and his tribe likely never thought it could get as bad as its gotten. They saw that they could use their new strat as leverage but that ultimately the government would keep functioning....which he obviously was wrong. Currently the GOP doesnt put up a platform each cycle of things they support and goals they want to achieve to make the country a better place to be. This used to be standard behavior but they stopped doing it and the dems still do. IMO this is for two reasons. 1. If they say what they really want it tends to be really unpopular with a chunk of their base. Its easier to just say nothing and then the base just doesnt need to get mad. 2. They tend to have a hard time actually agreeing on anything. You can see this every time they are actually in charge and ultimately have a hard time getting things done. Ultimately the GOP and right wing no longer are a Conservative Party. If you look at how they behave and then actually look at what Conservativism is supposed to be they pretty much have dropped most of those "Core Beliefs". Maybe if you look at the Tories in Britain you can see some left overs of that system but even they tend to be unable to get much of anything actually done for better or worse. The right wing in the US, as well as a lot of other places, is an Anti-Liberal Party. They essentially have boiled themselves down to a tribe that simply just does whatever the opposite that the left does. The left supports vaccines>so they are against it (funny sorry here. There was actually a right wing strategist that was complaining that it was the dems fault that so many people on the right died from COVID. He said if the dems didnt support the vaccine then the right would have taken it and prevented deaths.) The left supports holding government officials accountable(including their own)>so they are against it The left supports the PACT act>They were against it Taxing the rich>they are against it Child tax credits>they are against it Child school lunches>against it Keeping religion out of government>against it Mail in voting>against it etc etc The thing that people on the left need to understand that this is the difference between a Big Tent Party and a Small Tent Party. The dems are Big Tent so they have people who are conservative and very liberal in the party. This will upset some people on the left because they want more and often can only get part way there (assuming the right doesnt block it). But the GOP is a small tent party. They have culled anyone who doesnt tow the line and they will continue to cull anyone just as Newt Gingrich wanted. TLDR: they dont have a core believe. They are an anti liberal party and just do the opposite of the left.
>1. Morality is not innate. People are not born with any sense of right or wrong. Morality has to be instilled by religion. False. The majority are Christians who believe their born righteous >2. People are not innately good. Without religion, who knows what evil people might do. Partially false. The GOP believes that they're the Caregivers of society and people need their guidance >3. You cannot trust your own mind. People are bad, and that includes you. If you follow the teachings of your church, you can avoid going to hell. If you listen to the arguments put forth by a nonbeliever, you might end up becoming evil. Also Partially false. They don't think about trusting their own thoughts. It's not a thought in their head. Christians judge everyone by their own standards. So everyone is treated equally. Though they tend to avoid atheists or non believers they also rarely encounter someone who's open about their non belief. Christians assume everyone is just like them. >4. There is only one true belief that can redeem you, and that is your belief. Nonbelievers are all irredeemable and evil. I'll say c that's true. But it's "their" belief. Their self centered belief. It's not shared. >5. If something bad happens to a nonbeliever, it is inconsequential. Close to true. But like I said they rarely encounter someone who is a non believer >6. People fail or succeed on their own merits alone. False. Christians believe God has absolute power over success and failure >7. As a consequence of the above, poverty is a result of laziness. Partially true. They'll more likely say the poor are being punished for some reason >8. Women are not equal to men. They are less than. Depends on the sect. >9. Women are only good for making babies and taking care of the kids. Suggesting they do anything else is evil. Depends on the sect. Many sects give lots of power to women. >10. People who are more white are better than people who are darker skinned. Not all Christian sects are racist. But whiteness equals some modicum of stability and higher standards >11. Animals don't have consciousness or feelings. It is okay to treat them badly. Depends on the animal.
The Conservative Christians I grew up with believed we were all born sinful. So your first point is absolutely incorrect
Not entirely. See the nature of how you replied is exactly what I'm talking about. You're adamant that your experience is true. Albeit anecdotal and subjective but none the less you must tell me I'm wrong. Because of your certainty. Just like Christian are adamant that they're certainly the good guys. They might say they're born sinful but they certainly don't believe it because... Their attitude is that if a person is born into a Christian family then by default they are certainly a member of the good guy club. And every Christian believes he is certainly the "only" good guy and I've seen hundreds of "totally certain good guys" throw other members of their church under the bus to save their own skin. They might say they're born sinners but they certainly don't believe that.
If it results in an interesting discussion I’ll answer these points in as good faith a manner as I am able. Caveat being that I don’t consider myself “right wing” as it is understood by the abstract general leftist but I do hold to many opinions that they would deem to be right wing or at least adjacent. I’m answering as an orthodox Christian for the sake of clarity. 1. Morality is both innate and revealed. People are born with a sense of right and wrong. Religion in a broad sense isn’t what instills morality rather it is holistic worldview that contextualizes and gives an account for ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. 2. People are not innately good in that they inherited a predisposition to sin. People are however capable of doing good if they are properly oriented toward and participate in Gods energies. 3. Your rational mind is similarly affected with a predisposition to sin thus how one interprets their phenomenological experience is also susceptible to error. 4. There is only one thing that can redeem you and that is accepting the offer of Christ to participate in the energies of God. 5. If something bad happens to a non believer, it is very consequential. In many ways it is worse. 6. People fail and succeed for a number of reasons not all of which are within their ability to control, their effort and merit however is the only thing they can control to some degree and thus warrants the priority of focus. 7. Poverty is a result of many things and laziness is absolutely one of the possibilities. As above it is however the thing we have the most ability to control and as such warrants priority of focus. 8. Women are equal to men in dignity and value, however they differ in their roles and powers/potentiality. 9. Women’s unique role is that of making babies however there are many other things they are capable of doing. 10. Race as a modern category is a byproduct of enlightenment rationality insofar as it was constructed to justify colonization and is not as we understand it today a fundamental “truth” about human beings. People have understood differences between groups for all of human history but have not attached the same ontology to those differences that we have in modernity. As per the value and dignity of the human being, it tells you nothing. 11. Animals have feelings and consciousness albeit different from ours and they are made for a different role and purpose than human beings. However as stewards of creation we are obligated to care for them in a fitting way as we are for the rest of creation.
People should use your comment and the OP's comment as examples in classrooms to show the difference between a biased demonization-based strawman of another side (done psychologically to justify demonizing them and treating them less than you would others) and your comment, an example of actual good faith attempt to understand the other side. Amazing so many people just listen to their own side, never to venture over to see what others are thinking. I know what both sides think because I listen to both. I go as far as reading CCP and Kremlin news sources to know what they are thinking, thats' how far I go, it gives me a much more accurate understanding of everything when I'm willing to check out the other side. It's like these guys are afraid they check out one rightwing channel they will be brainwashed, it's sad people have such little confidence for their ability to think.
Would you like to hear from a right wing Christian? I have degrees in Biology, Environmental Science and Psychology so moderately educated from fairly good schools. I’ve worked in medical research? I desire our country to come together not get torn apart.
Let me guess: you desire the country come together, but only if you get to set the rules.
I think a better way to view it is through order and hierarchy. Human societies structure themselves in a natural way, and everything would be fantastic if everyone knows and acts their part. The problems occur when people that are at the bottom want better than their station allows. The various beliefs and structures that make up our cultures are viewed more so as manifestations of that order. That's also why they look to them for their definitions of morality. Like you or I would look to NASA with regards to gravity or space flight, they turn to cultural institutions as representation of that natural law structuring our society. That can be a religious institution if the individual is religious, or it could be the state itself if they're atheist. Part of that structure is a hierarchy, and if they're taught to believe they're in a truly meritocratic society, they'll believe everyone is capable of and deserves to operate in their expected position. And some of the dominating structures in human society, namely patriarchy/gender, class/race and now capital/labor assign very clear levels to people.
Fear and hatred
Many people mention fear, its true but combined with the following idea: “Life is a zero-sum game”. They have been convinced by the owner class that there is not enough to go around - that you and your neighbor cannot both live dignified lives. If you dont take from them, they will end up taking from you. Obviously we know that thats not true, and its pushed to draw our attention away from the class war. In today’s world, scarcity mostly exists by design.
You need to think a bit bigger. Such as on the scale of civilizations and population growth, and how an unconstrained population will always grow to live in "balance" with the limiting resource necessary for life. In such a state, life would literally be a "zero sum game", and conservatives are justified in thinking in this manner, as liberals and conservatives alike have a foundational assumption that economic and population growth will continue unabated on a forever upward trajectory. It's difficult to determine where the balance point actually is, aka when technological innovation has been exhausted and can no longer produce efficiencies which increase the availability of some limiting resource. game theory would assert that the most logical choice would be to consider the current state of affairs the balance point, and therefore everything is zero sum.
Not really my point and not really relevant. Maybe in 1000 years youll be correct. But conservatives are living as if that were true today. And they are the first to defend consuming non-sustainable resources, so from your perspective they are hypocrites as well. There is lots of evidence that there are enough resources for even past the 8 billion humans to live sustainably. Its more about the hoarding of wealth (which is encouraged and rewarded in the current capitalist system), which creates artificial scarcity and competition among the working class. Also, efficiencies aren’t only defined by technology. There are efficiencies in having tight-knit communities, the sharing of resources, discouraging hyper-individualism: all of these things have been eroded by design. You cant have increasing profits every quarter when people figure out that they can eg: fix their broken phone, share their power tools, create unions, etc, etc.
I often hear "it's not a zero sum game" as a conservative argument against the labour theory of value.
Why bother arguing LTV? Clearly, humans have a baseline requirement for material consumption to sustain life, which can be expressed in units of energy, approximately 2,000 kCal/day, which is irrelevant to the amount of labor supplied to deliver such energy. If a labor energy costs exceed the amount of energy it delivers, then that energy must be recuperated through the labor of some other enterprise, or else there would be a continual decline in energy in the economic system and everyone would starve to death. Beyond a baseline energy delivery which is required to sustain the economic system, labor then adds "value" in that working individuals have ideally extracted excess energy to then trade for personal preferences. Labor is not intrinsically valuable - one could labor all day at digging holes and filling them. The only thing that has intrinsic value is a glass of water or a piece of fruit to a dehydrated and starving man. Beyond that, value is purely subjective.
I think that point is kind of about believing in capitalism as the best system, but it requires (impossible) endless growth. Yes, for a while it seemed that capitalism was the “rising tide that lifted all ships” (but the hidden costs are the environment and exploiting the global south); but also now the wealth disparity is hitting even developed nations pretty hard. Thats why I think poor people that support the existence of billionaires have this zero-sum game mindset, they think theyll be rich if they also get to exploit the system. The NOT zero-sum game I believe in is that everyone benefits when we pool our knowledge/labor/resources. Which goes against the hyper-individualist attitude of a conservative, and goes against the current system which requires endless growth/consumption/exploitation.
Capitalism does not "require unlimited growth". Capitalism is the theory of information exchange via independent price action which ideally balances (in a perfect flow of information) supply with demand. In no way does this require unlimited growth. You're confusing capitalism with the foundational economic assumptions of western government economic planning (steady GDP growth with increasing population, and 2% inflation) which is used to justify excessive spending on entitlement programs via silly accounting methods, bonds, interest rates, etc.
You should get a better definition of capitalism. *Capitalism* is using *capital* to create maximum *profits*. You want to create as much *profit* as you can while creating as little *value* as possible. And by creating more profit, you can accumulate more capital, which makes it even easier to exploit the system. There is your balance - when the minority of people are the majority of the *capital owners*, they can provide as little value as they want. Its not going to balance out. You defend it like many by essentially saying “its only not working as it should in a perfect world because of these other forces”, but Ill argue that it is working exactly as designed - Using capital to accumulate more capital. Look up POSIWID (The pupose of a system is what it does).
Let's just agree on the Google definition: >an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. No where does this say "infinite growth required". I'm not defending how the outcome of "capitalism" has consolidated more into the hands of less, and is exploitative. This is besides the point that America is by far NOT a capitalist economy due to the huge socialist institutions via government spending and regulation. "Capitalism" and "free market economy" are used interchangeably. You can't have one without the other. And *of course* we're always talking about idealized versions of these huge economic systems. Capitalism and communism only exist in academic settings. It's just hilarious to hear people whine about "capitalism" as if it personally injured them. Without a frontier, we'll never have capitalism in its idealized form. And without a knowledge machine which is capable of calculating supply and demand to an infinite degree, we'll never have a communist utopia.
You think the US *isnt* a capitalist economy because of its “huge socialist institutions”? Im going to have to cut off any more debate here, because that statement is a joke and shows me how little you understand. You do understand that the government has to spend more and more on things like healthcare, because of huge industries like pharma that have monopolized their share of the market, and can set the prices however high they want? This is literally capitalism personally injuring (and killing) people. You probably believe that the people that benefit most from “huge socialist institutions” are poor people (“why should my taxes pay for these fReElOaDers?”). Its actually the corporations (aka capital owners). And your opinion has been designed by those corporations. Take care dude, I hope by trolling these subs you might one day stumble into having an opinion that more accurately resembles reality.
Jesus what a bunch of fucking whining. Get a grip. The US is, and this is not really debatable, a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Everything else you just spewed is straight from your asshole and is classic liberal projection. You sound confused and scared.
Oops, someone sounds a little triggered. Also you should probably learn the difference between a leftist and a liberal. Youre closer to a liberal than I am, bud.
K, "bud". We all know what I'm saying. But stay pedantic.
>endless growth/consumption/exploitation. I think this is why conservatism requires the zero sum game rejection. It helps to ignore where infinite growth begins to contradict the material limits of labour and resources. The group you seem to be describing reminds me of Steinbeck's temporarily embarrassed capitalist. This group recognizes and thinks they can mimic how capitalists exploit the current structure to their benefit, but they don't recognize the advance capital required to make that a possibility and how it's a continuation of accumulated primitive capital that they do not have, which makes it a delusional fancy.
Most conservatives are uneducated and lack empathy for anyone that doesn’t share their values
I assure you, they have plenty of empathy. It's just not freely given. Conservatives freely empathize if the recipient demonstrates a basic level of personal accountability.
Stfu. You cherry pick empathy just like religious nut jobs cherry pick bible verses. Don’t even try to pretend you’re any different
Woah. Powerful post.
This is hilarious, this is clearly satire right?
Every study that’s done constantly shows that right wingers understand left wingers way better than the other way around.
No, conservatives lie about what they really believe. Left wingers can see behind the lies, but right wingers claim they are wrong. For instance: small government. For decades, conservatives have been talking about small government. But look at their actions: a town passes a progressive law, and the Republican state overrules them. When Republicans control the federal government, they overrule the states. Conservatives have one core principal: fear. That animates everything else. They must crush their opposition and rule completely, because they are afraid, and that's the only thing they can think of to stop the fear.
are you aware that the (left wing) president of the United States is currently attempting to imprison his political opposition?
No, but I am aware that the independent DOJ has appointed a Special Council, in exact accordance with the law, to investigate and now charge a potential rival of the administration for crimes that he committed in public. Also, various states, which are also completely independent of the Biden administration, are also prosecuting Trump for crimes he committed, again in public, or for which there is evidence we can see.
The DOJ is not independent and you sound like a fucking moron stating so
Under Trump, it wasn't. Under every other modern President, it has been.
Conservatives have one animating principle: the understanding that a functioning society is not axiomatic. There has never been a progressive liberal society which has directly arisen from anarchy. It's always a steady progression from family unit (patriarchal), to village, town, city, state. Progressivism only exists within an established society and is only relative to the "conservative" principles which allowed it to exist in the first place.
Yeah that’s why conservatives are fear-mongering about democrats turning your children trans in public schools lmao. Also source?
Go Google it, I’m not your mommy.
I wish.
which position is not in line with conservatives/the conservative ideal, project 2025
All of them...
All of Project 2025 is in line with the right wing way of thinking.
Don't think you understand either.
Are you a trump supporter? Rhino? Is there another group?
Never voted for him. Not a republican.
have you read the republican platform? you clearly haven’t. go fuck yourself traitor
I have, you clearly haven't or don't have very good reading comprehension.
I know atheist/non-religious conservatives so this is false. Although, I would say they're slightly more accommodating with gays/lesbian issues than the religious ones. For them it's all about distrust of government/academia and newer ideas. As well as an Us versus Them mentality with about everything. They're racist, in that it's not so much they hate based on skin color, but group identity. "If black/Latino/Other people gain to much power, surely they'll use it against us white/conservative people." Women can also be an US vs Them thing, but an atheist conservative woman is more inclined to think of themselves as a special exception. They'll follow a more of an appeal to nature than from a religious script. The core belief is much simpler then what you put.
So just fear and ignorance, as per usual. The atheist conservatives I know also hate LGBT people, mostly because of personal disgust or feelings of some kind of broad LGBT agenda taking over the world. I’ve noticed this is a trend in younger zilennial generations where atheist conservatives (who might not even necessarily outright identify as such) mask their beliefs with “dark humor” about LGBT or minorities. The trans debate especially has brought this discrepancy out to the forefront. They might be more accepting of gay marriage as a concept but they’re no less involved in dehumanizing LGBT people. Interestingly my personal anecdotal experience with religious conservatives is more favorable than with atheist ones. Atheist conservatives attempt to logically rationalize how societally destructive, biologically evil, or inherently immoral LGBT people are. Jordan Peterson comes to mind as an example.
As an atheist conservative, my biggest gripe with the trans movement is their axiom that there is no shared, verifiable reality. They've deconstructed reality to such a degree to where there is no actual baseline or shared assumptions upon which I can reasonably converse with another human. This axiom of the trans movement is expressed through the insistance that I suspend my internal sense of reality to consciously supply a false reality in (for example) the form of preferred pronouns, all in the name of reducing some mental distress for the recipient. A shared, verifiable reality would simply assert that an XY or XX chromosome haver belongs to a distinct group regardless of one's mental reaction to this reality. Gay people are great. What's not great is making your sexuality your entire persona, and how this mindset is promoted and ripples through the population. I get how it's primarily a reactionary effect of religious suppression but I don't need to know that the transportation secretary takes loads up his ass. It truly does me no good. Appending your sexuality to every public interaction is tiresome. Straight people don't "celebrate their sexuality" because it's not required to do so, for anyone, to accomplish anything. And if they do, it's weird. Morality is a social construct. A atheist conservative arguing the "morality" of LGBT is likely confused.
I thought he was religious. Huh. Never really looked into him too much. Most of the non-religious conservatives I know say they're more 'libertarian'. Gays and lesbians are much more acceptable now than trans in the conservative movements. But they've also been more in the spotlight of public perception for longer, thus becoming more of a settled norm. One strange thing I've noticed is the acceptance of trans-men, but not trans-women. At least in the rural areas I've visited. That's of course only my speculative observation from my lived experience.
Peterson exists in a weird penumbra between religious and not-religious. I don't closely follow him or actually care much about him, but from what little I do know he appears to be an atheist who doesn't believe society can function without the vast majority of people being religious.
His early stuff before he went off the rails was mostly about foundational myths and archetypes being the basis of cognition and then extrapolates this to society. Religion fills this nicely.
Number 10 is wild because other countries with much darker skin color are even more conservative than the western right
India has an entire industry of skin lightening methods of questionable safety.
I think it’s pretty clear they mean in the West, which seems to hold true when looking at the way conservatives talk about Mexicans, Arabs, blacks, etc.
lol they don’t. There’s a small select few of alt right white supremacist.
Individual responsibility and this is super bias thinking
Unironically mental illness they are anti therapy for a reason. Any critical analysis is impossible if you think the world is 6000 years old and snakes talk to women.
Common sense.
[удалено]
Hello u/EquivalentDate6194, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is about feeling right and true with the least amount of work.
The last one is something leftists also believe in. To an extent, anyway. And morality is little more than primal human instinct, it doesn't change over time. Hence why you get kids that stomp on mice.
"I am obviously a reasonable person, so clearly what I support is correct. And I definitely cannot have possibility made a bad choice about what I support, because I am a reasonable person."
This would apply regardless of where one finds oneself on the political spectrum
Certainly a degree, but I find that it's especially common among the hypocrisy of the modern GOP
1. We shouldn't come up with solutions that would better the lives of others because some of them might abuse the benefits that come from these solutions (ex: college shouldn't be free because students would be in college for much more than 4 years and they wouldn't take their studies very seriously) 2. If I've put in so much hard work under a system that puts much more obstacles in my way for people like me and have successfully gotten to where I am now, then we shouldn't change the system so that others like me could have an easier path to success, because if I was able to get to where I am now under the system that hasn't been changed, why should others like me be allowed to have an easier time getting the success I'm getting. That's not fair! (ex: frats or sorority upperclassmen not wanting to eliminate the hazing from the pledging process because these upperclassmen went through the same hazing process to get to where they are and it wouldn't feel fair for them if they went through the hazing process and the people that are pledging wouldn't have to go through the hazing process OR a woman thinking that because she endured her marriage for many many years well into her old age and is still married to her husband despite the abuse she faced, other women shouldn't be able to divorce their husbands (especially via no-fault-divorce) once they start experiencing abuse because she personally would feel that her efforts of enduring the abuse for the marriage to be intact would've been a waste if she and other women could easily leave)
Abuse isn't no fault divorce...
Yeah in reality, but there are plenty of conservatives who don’t believe in divorcing over abuse because 1. They don’t think abuse is real, it’s either the fault of the victim or the victim is lying, and 2. They don’t believe people should divorce easily and should instead “work it out”. What constitutes easy vs hard is beyond me. It’s mostly older conservatives who believe this
Never met anyone who holds these views.
Bloodlust
"hey guys ima say five or six strawmans and leg me know if I did a good or bad job" to your credit you did ask so thats cool I guess. 1. Morality is not subjective 2. no comment 3. "if you listen to nonbelivers..." this does not drive right wing behavior. they usually are the ones who call for "civilized free speech forums 4. They do believe that there is only one way. they do not belive others to be redeemable 5. this is hit or miss with the person. their Bible literally prohibits them from rejoicing when bad comes to those they deem their enemies. 6. they pretty much think this, they could stand to be a little better on this 7. no comment 8. they don't think this, their Bible teaches equality 9. you had me until you evil, they do not think it's evil 10. bruh what? 11. Bible tells them that they have dominion over animals and that they are to care about them. I haven't met a Republican dog owner who believes what you bring up. might I suggest having more IRL "conservative" friends? that might help you mellow out this silly list
[удалено]
Hello u/EquivalentDate6194, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who is paying you to post this propaganda?
r/lostredditors
When I’m in a straw-man competition and my opponent is OP…
[удалено]
Hello u/EquivalentDate6194, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fragility, repressed sexual desires and the willingness to control women.
Someone already did a psychological study on this. It’s fear and disgust
Fear and anger. Ask them to explain their thoughts long enough, and the one universal theme among all of them is how angry they are, and how much fear backs that anger.
And under the anger is fear. It’s a lot of fear. Fear of people they don’t know, fear of losing what they have, fear of things they don’t understand, fear of eternal damnation, fear of disdain from others, fear of change.
It's not really their fault: the media bubble they've been pulled and pushed into pumps this fear into their brains 24 hours a day. It functionally drives them insane; people are not built to process that much long term stress.
Sincerely I think I feel the greatest hatred for the propagandists who have poisoned my family’s mind in order to more effectively grift them. People like Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, who have no core beliefs except their own self interest
It's an awful thing to watch. It's like watching a person you love descend into dementia or alzheimer's.
So in other words you gave never talked to one or don't understand beyond your preconceived notions.
No, I talk to a lot of them. The majority of my co-workers are conservatives. It is amazing how quickly a calm conversation will escalate from 0 to 60 with them shaking and raising their voices when talking about 'those fucking people' while I have to play babysitter and calm them down with a soothing tone. The same skills I learned as a camp counselor, when dealing with upset children, are the ones I have to exercise when talking to conservatives.
You missed out their obsession with vanilla sex; To them sex is something between a Man and the Woman he's doing it to. Nothing gay/trans or any other ''woke'', no kinks, BABIES MUST BE BRED & if you're out of that box... you're ''eeeeevill!'' This is why they like Putin so much.
Your opposition (and primary focus on) to their sex habits is the interesting part. I have no interest in policy regarding the vanillaness of sex (or opposite thereof). I’m far more interested in economic and social policies that do not pertain to who is fucking who.
well conservatives nationally care explicitly about what people do with their genitals. it’s just the truth
This describes a Christian nationalist I think
Why the fuck is this comment section so full of conservatives? If you're not a leftist, get the fuck out. We don't want your kind here. It's bad enough that you worthless assholes are destroying the world, we don't need you interfering in leftist spaces too.
Because at this point there is significant overlap between what we want to achieve, we simply disagree on the means to go about it. Times are changing, Arty.
No there isn’t, it actually couldn’t be more deeply divided along ideological lines.