93
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
93 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
31360 readers
1969 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Normally I'd say it was a weakness but the right has significantly departed from reality in most countries for way too long now. It's incredibly rare to find a right-winger who can be present in a discussion without spewing a whole lot of vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit.
So I find their absence refreshing, desirable and a strength of Lemmy.
I find the same on the left wing. Everytime I put out a slightly right wing position I get attacked and a ton of down votes.
Every time anyone mentions on Lemmy right wing positions it is with only to attack a strawman version that is very removed from what most right wing people think/do.
Downvotes can't actually hurt you.
Personally, I'm fine with saying unpopular things and getting downvoted for it. Mods removing a disallowed viewpoint is something different.
They don't hurt, but they still do not feel nice.
Just remember that the first person to say the world went around the sun got downvoted into oblivion… but it is factually accurate and a giant leap towards out current understanding of the physical realm. I’m happy for people to disagree with my views. Fuck, I probably disagreed with half of them, thirty years ago.
You're comparing downvotes with "vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit". The behavior I'm talking about isn't hurtful in the social-rejection way that downvotes are, it goes way way beyond that. Can you see the difference?
It would help if you would be more precise. You are using a "feels like" statement here, which I have to disagree with b/c it is objectively false: all it would take would be to find a singular example wherein it was not true, at which point "every time" is shown to be invalid.
But often that does occur, yes. Sometimes our choice of wording can impede rather than aid in understanding?
And I say this as someone who seems to be more often misunderstood than not, go figure :-|.
I'm sure a counter example exists, but I've been around for year and not seen it yet. Though I'll accept that the exception probably exists.
Please... this is a serious display of availability bias.
Let's face it: the demographic here is just a hyper concentrated version of Reddit, which itself is mostly middle-upper class tweenagers from affluent countries. They get online and get convinced that everyone is just like them.
The average person that hangs out on Reddit-like forums absolutely does not represent the population at large, and any "right-winger who can be present in a discussion without spewing a whole lot of vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit" has learned that there is no way one can have a reasonable exchange of ideas in any forum like this.
Your points about social bubbles and echo chambers are true, but experiencing the displeasure of having to routinely interact with rightwingers in person verifies that they have fully-fledged conviction in their “vile conspiracy hate fascist bullshit”. They can’t have a reasonable exchange of ideas because they bring nothing reasonable or empathetic to the table.
Case closed.
Yep. I'm fiscally conservative, mildly sympathetic to people who fear and resist change, and fond of the pragmatic pursuit of libertarian ideals, where that's possible.
I also feel that how others do sex is none of my damn business, taxes supporting social services are necessary, and equitably applied rule of law is critical for any real economic prosperity.
On the scale of history, I suspect that makes me centrist or even a moderate conservative.
In my country, and today, somehow, astonishingly, this combination makes me what most would call very left leaning.
I feel that the right has gone insane and continues to alienate people who might otherwise have been allies.
No. Liberalism is against most things that the right wing of the political spectrum explicitly stands for. Liberalism exists as a counter argument to conservatism. As I mentioned earlier US political language has twisted and distorted what these words really mean.
No. I’m not talking from a US perspective. I’m talking from a political perspective. Liberalism is a moral and political philosophy - that is available in more than one flavour. Many things liberalism stands for are incompatible with right wing governments. Conservatism is far right? No, fascism is far right and there is an enormous difference between being conservative and being a fascist. Right and left are both part of a spectrum and run the whole gamut from dipping your toe in the water to being fully submerged. It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Again, no. I was talking about John Locke and David Lloyd George type characters - to suggest that the last Liberal party prime minister of the UK was to the right of the political spectrum was an interesting take I’d never heard before.
I’m no expert - it’s just that the (UK) liberal party merged with a left of centre party, the SDP (Social Democratic Party) and were briefly called the SDLP; before rebranding to the Liberal Democrats. They are still left of centre.
I think a lot of the liberal views towards capitalism can only be seen through the context of trying to humanise the inherent framework of capitalism. I think you’re correct that they never looked beyond existing within capitalism and therefore perhaps ultimately paid a price for that.
Thanks for the weekend wishes, same to you.
I know it's comfortable to sit and call anything slightly right of ultra socialism as 'right wing' but a spectrum exists.
To conflate republican evangelical dominionist Christians with liberals is peak hubris.
There is a saying: 'when you're a hammer, every problem is a nail'. When you reduce everything to class warfare you're not engaging in an effective discourse to reduce harm in the world. You're just pontificating on the merits of socialism, which yea, we all agree are neat. But so what? You think folding everyone else into a basket gives you credence or helps the discourse in any way?
I think my issue is with the usage of the phrase "right wing" because we need something scathing to label liberals. It doesn't really contribute anything to the discourse except create layers of exclusion.
Liberalism, broadly, is not interested in supporting or enabling hierarchies. The only thing they share in common with right wing conservatism is the ownership of private property -but that's it. So lumping them all in the same bucket isn't doing much for anyone except creating more exclusion at the risk of pushing forward socialist policies. The reality is liberals are probably more likely to favor equality, even if it's just ideological. Shouldn't we strive to bring more people on board and build bridges rather than continue this bizarre war of artrition?
Wikipedia: Right Wing Politics
We don't have to have an argument over it. It's ok to have a conversation. I'm familiar with the 'liberals are right wing' talking point.
I'm just trying to understand what exactly it is that defines 'right wing' and how we define 'liberalism' . You're right, it IS a semantic discussion, but clearly the implication is that liberalism is on par with being right wing. So, nonetheless, a semantic relabeling which is not devoid of consequences.
So I'm wondering, at what point do those two overlap (liberalism and right wing politics)? Is it the right to private property? Beyond that, what exactly makes liberalism 'right wing'?
I agree with all of this. However, and I could be wrong, my understanding of classic liberalism is that it was never directly opposed to regulation or social services. My initial understanding is that it's by necessity tied to free markets and private property.
But if it is then I'm learning something new.
Yea you know what: I stand corrected. Classic liberalism is closely aligned with conservatism in the sense that it is shuttered from regulation. My mind is on the social liberal aspect.