1035
submitted 1 year ago by Custoslibera@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 194 points 1 year ago

It's a common mistake among conservatives that they believe everyone is as self-centered and greedy as they are

I've not become more conservative as I age because I'd kill myself before becoming that awful to people around me

To what extent do you think education has played a role in allowing kids to critically analyse these types of people. Because in my history classes, we learned about ways people influenced others in nefarious ways and I'm wondering if kids see the same common pattern and know when to avoid.

Just a thought 🤷

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 17 points 1 year ago

Oh, I definitely think it's played an important role. There's a reason the right wing regularly attacks education. Seems to be a global thing, too -- not just the US.

Also just a thought, though!

Good question, anyone that has an education will tell you it's changed their life and I believe that too. Even though sometimes it's boring, the advantage is just too good for future children. Just suspicious that right wing wants to reverse progress.

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago

It's become unfortunately popular in some circles to view education as strictly a state's propaganda tool, but in spite of its flaws, I've been pretty impressed by how effective it can be in the hands of skilled and passionate groups of individual educators.

That's not to say there aren't bad teachers (and don't even get me started on administrators and legislators), but I do attribute a lot to what it has accomplished, for example, in my remote state, and that's in spite of being regularly attacked by christofascists. When I think about it, I'm not sure I'd have much of a healthy perspective on things if not for some influential teachers. I'm a huge fan of public education, and I think we need to speak up for it whenever we can. It's tragic what's happened to it these past few years in my state and others.

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I’m conservative, I’m not American though.

I wish there was a place we could talk about the issues we disagree on without assuming the other is PURE EVIL OMG HITLER HITLER NAZI!

Or DIRTY PEDO COMMIE HATES WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND WANTS US TO ALL BE GULAGED LITERALLY STALIN STALIN STALIN!

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 56 points 1 year ago

"I just wish there was a place I could talk about maintaining the structures that oppress billions but keep me feeling comfortable and superior without those who are negatively impacted telling me I'm a piece of shit"

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Damn, man

It must be miserable being you

[-] irmoz@reddthat.com 33 points 1 year ago

Why not actually respond to what they said? Conservatism is inherently about conserving power in the elite. It seems a bit immature to respond to an (admittedly snide and sarcastic) challenge to your beliefs with a personal insult. All they did was accurately break down what your comment represents.

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I’m having a dozen conversations and 80% of the time when I click on the response in my inbox to go back to the context it takes me to another post all together.

I don’t even know what our conversation has been up to this point.

What did they say? And then how did I respond? I wish you could see my inbox with all of the personal attacks I’ve received not only today, but over the last two months over different accounts lol

So if someone is being an idiot to me, I don’t have a problem being an idiot back. If you’re respectful, I’ll have a respectful conversation with you.

[-] irmoz@reddthat.com 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That entire comment was just a dodge. Do your due diligence and click "show context" (it is the bare minimum effort), and stop avoiding the subject. Or just don't respond if you don't want to discuss.

If you want to know what they were talking about - I already summed it up in the comment you're responding to. Precisely so you couldn't excuse dodging the point a second time. And yet, here you are, doing exactly that.

Do you deny that conservatism is about conserving the power in the established elite? And if so - how?

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

https://lemmy.one/comment/2873366

Lol this is the kind of thing that shows up in my inbox over and over and over again

I just told you, I click on the reply and it takes me to some random part of the thread. When replies start getting nested and there’s a lot of comments I can’t find the posts. And I don’t really care that much to spend the time searching, when my inbox keeps filling up with messages like the one I linked.

Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.

Of course there’s a lot more to it than that.

[-] irmoz@reddthat.com 22 points 1 year ago

Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.

This is "state's rights" level of beating around the bush.

What traditions? What values? What institutions? I'll tell you which ones.

The "tradition" of hierarchy and dominance, of the supremacy of capitalism and the Protestant work ethic, which have inevitably created an elite class.

The "values" of hyper individualism, competition and deference to authority, which have led to oligopolies forming and exerting control over society, to be defended by the state at all costs.

The institutions of the state and capital. Need I say more?

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

What you’re describing is really just western civilization, just in a really cynical way.

I get it, you and people like you hate western civilization. That’s why those of us who love it stamp out any communist bullshit when we see it. Because we know, we know what the point of the ‘revolution’ is, it’s to destroy the western countries.

It’s not something you’re likely to come out and admit, but when you say something like the ‘tradition of hierarchy’ well ya. What exactly is wrong with that? Dominance isn’t a well defined term, supremacy is a loaded word, I don’t know what a Protestant work ethic is in comparison to any other type of work ethic, but of course I value some kind of work ethic.

Yes there should be hierarchy. Of course.

‘Deference to authority’, is this some anarchy argument? That’s what it sounds like.

So if I break down all of what you’re saying, remove hierarchy, remove capitalism, remove competition and authority.

Okay, I take all that in and I think “hm. He wants to destroy everything that western civilization has built”.

This is why I’ll always oppose this kind of bullshit, because it’s disgusting. What you mean, if you got your way, would cause so much more death and suffering and you’re cowering behind this visage of saintly goodness. It’s gross, honestly.

And most people who argue for this I usually just assuming are misinformed dreamers hoping for a utopia that’ll never come. But then there are others, the ones who know what they’re asking for and willing to go the distance to achieve it.

Those ones are, I think, ones like you. Probably in here spreading anarchocommunist propaganda for your cause online to impressionable and well meaning kids.

People like that, know they’re trying to destroy the country and rebuild it in their own anarcho-communist image.

[-] irmoz@reddthat.com 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What you’re describing is really just western civilization, just in a really cynical way.

Do you think I'm unaware of this? Yes, that's the prevailing ideology of neoliberalism; what modern conservatives are fighting to conserve.

I get it, you and people like you hate western civilization.

Incorrect and reductive to boot. There's a great deal to love about western civilisation. I just don't like neoliberal capitalism.

That’s why those of us who love it stamp out any communist bullshit when we see it. Because we know, we know what the point of the ‘revolution’ is, it’s to destroy the western countries.

That's just paranoid red-scare propaganda. This isn't a game of Civilization 5, and the goal of communism is not to "destroy" anything.

It’s not something you’re likely to come out and admit, but when you say something like the ‘tradition of hierarchy’ well ya. What exactly is wrong with that?

You seem to have gotten confused midway through this sentence. What do you want me to "admit"? As for what is wrong with hierarchy - I challenge you to explain what's right about it. What is the value in placing people above and below each other?

Dominance isn’t a well defined term

Just an excuse to avoid discussing it. It's quite well defined, studied and documented. Many forms of dominance have existed throughout history, and historians, sociologists and political scientists have long analysed its various appearances. At the very basic level, dominance is just having power over a person or group of people. It's not hard to pin down.

supremacy is a loaded word

So what?

I don’t know what a Protestant work ethic is in comparison to any other type of work ethic, but of course I value some kind of work ethic.

Google is your friend:

"Protestant ethic, in sociological theory, the value attached to hard work, thrift, and efficiency in one's worldly calling, which, especially in the Calvinist view, were deemed signs of an individual's election, or eternal salvation." Max Weber

"A view of life that promotes hard work and self-discipline as a means to material prosperity. It is called Protestant because some Protestant groups believe that such prosperity is a sign of God's grace." Dictionary.com

Put simply, if you're rich, it means God loves you, and the money is a reward from God, because you must have worked really hard for it.

Yes there should be hierarchy. Of course.

Why? You can't just say "of course".

‘Deference to authority’, is this some anarchy argument? That’s what it sounds like.

It could be, or it could be a communist argument, or a socialist argument, or a Georgist argument, a mutualist argument, or any number of ideologies opposed to an automatic respect of people arbitrarily placed above them.

What of it?

So if I break down all of what you’re saying, remove hierarchy, remove capitalism, remove competition and authority. Okay, I take all that in and I think “hm. He wants to destroy everything that western civilization has built”.

That's all you think western civilisation is? What do you think we were doing before capitalism came around? What do you think people do with their lives when they're not at work? Have you never heard of culture, art, philosophy? Have you never experienced community?

This is why I’ll always oppose this kind of bullshit, because it’s disgusting.

Explain how. And please avoid using such emotional language, it reeks of blatant manipulation.

What you mean, if you got your way

This isn't "my way". It's not about me or what I want.

would cause so much more death and suffering

How?

and you’re cowering behind this visage of saintly goodness.

Here you go using emotional rhetoric again. I'm not projecting any visage. I haven't pronounced my beliefs as saintly (I in fact haven't stated my beliefs at all) and haven't made any moral statements. This is just rhetoric at work.

It’s gross, honestly.

Once again, personal attacks and emotional appeals.

And most people who argue for this I usually just assuming are misinformed dreamers hoping for a utopia that’ll never come.

Why do you assume that? Do you have any idea what any of these people actually believe?

But then there are others, the ones who know what they’re asking for and willing to go the distance to achieve it.

And what are they asking for? You have no idea. You haven't even bothered to ask. You just accept what Fox News tells you.

Those ones are, I think, ones like you. Probably in here spreading anarchocommunist propaganda for your cause online to impressionable and well meaning kids.

This is blatant emotional pandering. Stop the faux sympathy train and come back to reality.

People like that, know they’re trying to destroy the country and rebuild it in their own anarcho-communist image.

What, exactly, do you think anarcho-communism is? And what makes you think building it entails "destroying the country"? And why assume this is a personal crusade motivated by individual beliefs, and not a social movement built out of collective efforts?

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

What Lemmy client are you using? All the ones I’ve tried allow you to jump right to the comment thread to read the comment in context. Reading via inbox sounds really disjointed and painful.

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It’s Memmy app. It’s absolutely not functioning properly

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Weird; I wonder if it’s a Memmy/instance interaction; I’m writing this via Memmy and am (mostly) getting threads to work. They were broken for a few versions though.

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It’s super frustrating, I would like to know why someone said “good luck with your wish then” before I respond to them, but I can’t find the post in the thread lol

I’d feel bad just responding randomly, and sometimes I get it wrong and respond out of context to people, which must be super frustrating for them.

It doesn’t help that most things I comment get a ton of replies, I understand why they do (a lot of people here disagree with me and want to tell me how horrible and stupid I am)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Robert7301201@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah, that's why they want change.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago

Its because for us in America there is nothing to argue for on conservatism that is appealing. Our democrats are center-right. What do we have to discuss between extremists and centrists of the same side? What companies should be bailed out first? Which lobbyist donate the fattest cheques? Its abysmal. So no, you won't find any citizens who want to discuss with conservatives same as you won't find many willing to discuss with the Taliban.

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly, it sounds like you’re the extreme one if you think the majority of everyone else is either centrist or extremist themselves.

How can you reconcile that?

[-] Custoslibera@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

If I understand what you’ve wrote you said;

You’re an extremist if you think the majority of other people are extremists.

Could you please elaborate on that?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 13 points 1 year ago

Conervative: "please don't call me a nazi hear me out first"

Normal people: "ok"

Conservative: "sieg heil, gas the jews"

Normal people: "you're a nazi"

Conservative: "see you won't even listen"

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Right cause this fucking happens

[-] crispy_kilt@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

It does. I shortened it a bit. The conservatives usually use many words, and they might try not to sound racist, but when pressed, they more or less admit they want certain groups of persons not to exist, women to have fewer rights, and so on. Back to barbarian times and war crimes basically.

[-] MrSnowy@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

What you're looking for is certainly not on this platform

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, I don’t think it exists anywhere

[-] girl@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

why aren’t you on truth social?

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] MrSnowy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Let me know when you find it, I'm looking too

[-] girl@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

is there a reason you aren’t on truth social?

[-] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago

Oh poor you. Go fuck yourself with a rusty blade, asshole.

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

The issue is that you rely on fear to gain support. You can’t just say, “I’m opposed to illegal immigration, we need to police our borders better.” Many people are interested in regulated borders. But then many on your side make it clear hate is their motivator, playing the xenophobic line and saying shit like “because these sand n*$&ers are murderers, terrorists and rapists.” And those who aren’t saying shit like that are silent.

I’m not interested in importing deeply conservative religious people to this country that are going to threaten the societal shift toward a secular society, especially at the specific time the SCOTUS is giving religions special privileges. But by no means do I need to cultivate hate in my heart or others, unless I’m a fuck.

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Where the fuck are you hearing that? Every conversation I have with my conservative friends revolves around how much immigration is reasonably doable and what number is too much strain on the system.

There’s never a racist undertone to the conversation. Immigrants can come from Africa, or Mexico, or Poland. No one I know gives a shit about who they are, just what the policy around it is

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago

What's your definition of conservative, and what is it about conservatism that appeals to you?

[-] Mudface@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

All of the political tests I’ve ever taken have named me a ‘classic liberal’. There are so many subdivision of political leanings that it gets pretty confusing.

I call myself a conservative because I believe in the family unit being the backbone of our society. The most important thing in the world. I believe in small government, I believe in free market capitalism, I think taxes should be minimal and government should be responsible with balancing the budget.

Im not overly religious, but I think religion has a lot of good lessons to teach. I think the Bible creates fences around issues and asks us to do our best not to cross them, but those fences are far enough away from the real issue that we need to avoid to mean it’s not a huge deal if we step over the odd one here or there. I don’t take the Bible 100% literally.

As for social topics, I’m much more liberal than where I am with governing. This is why I voted for Justin Trudeau back in like, 2015.

I believe drugs should be legal, sex work should be legal, I think we should have less laws in general. I respect the idea of the police, but I realize a lot of them are just losers from highschool who got picked on and now they have a gun and a badge.

I had a long soul searching introspective moment on abortion when my wife became pregnant with our first child and we were talking to the doctor about testing for Down’s syndrome.

I realized that for me, I am against it. But I’m not so quick to say it should be banned. I do think there should be common sense restrictions though.

Does that all make sense?

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah that makes sense. I think as an inevitable result of writing a brief online comment, you've expressed a quite vague and shallow perspective here, so if you don't mind I'd like to dig into it a little bit. In particular, I'm curious about what you mean when you say you "believe in small government" and "free market capitalism".

What sort of things do you think government should not be doing? Should people not be entitled to live a healthy life without being bankrupted? (I.e., should government not fund healthcare?) Are workers not entitled to fair treatment for their labour? (industrial relations laws and workplace health & safety.) Is public safety and order not important? (Fire departments, police, maybe the defence forces.) How do you feel when governments give subsidies to some businesses, like agriculture, mining, "bailing out the banks", or private education?

You'll note that some of these are things that conservative governments are associated with doing more of, while others are things conservative governments do less of. It's why I've always found the conservative parties' claims to be "small government" rather misleading. More of a marketing approach they use that doesn't actually represent what they stand for, and thus not particularly useful in good faith political discourse.

[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

families and free market capitalism are exclusive of each other.

Free market capitalism wants both parents and any children working as young as possible and as old as possible, as much as possible.

Free market capitalism does not - practically - support childcare (and childcare - bringing in someone else to care for your children - is the opposite of being a family), it does not support time off, it does not support vacations, it doesn't support education, it doesn't support public transportation (important when you have small kids), it doesn't support free Healthcare for childbirth, pre- and post-natal care, it doesn't support retirement so grandparents can help.

It also supports strict immigration and very much looks down on people immigrating with their families or brining their families over — leading to such terms as "anchor baby"

I'm a millennial immigrant to the USA. We can't have kids because my wife's job is location based and tied to student loan forgiveness and retirement divestment, so her family are thousands of miles in one direction, my family are thousands of miles in another direction. If we have a baby she loses her job, as theres no maternity or paternity leave, can't get her student loans forgiven, can't ever retire, I get 2 weeks off a year + public holidays and I often work 8am to 6 or 7pm - I would literally never see my child.

Captialism is directly responsible for the destruction of (this, but in my opinion all) families.

[-] TeddyPolice@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

Does that all make sense?

Yes but it doesn't describe conservatism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] explodicle@local106.com 5 points 1 year ago

If you can't find a reasonable discussion about a question anywhere, then maybe the question you're asking isn't reasonable.

load more comments (2 replies)

You have a reasonable take. I’m sorry you’re going to get assaulted with messages. Lemmy’s a bit of a hive mind so just know you’re not unreasonable for wanting a space where discussion can be had without bad faith. Also a conservative by the way. I’m really much more moderate, but no one here would classify me as that since the scope is shifted

[-] DarthBueller@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Right - the US overton window is dramatically shifted to the right, and the discourse on here does not accept that as a given but rather as a subject of critical analysis.

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1035 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

45189 readers
1150 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS