If your "conservative / right wing opinion" is that austerity measures are a good thing, then the most generous interpretation of that is that you're just a moron. As it turns out, though, today's "conservative / right wing opinions" are way worse than that. Things like "trans people aren't people". Or "we should do a treason". Or "bribing supreme court justices is totally fine". If you hold any of those opinions, the most generous interpretation of that is that you're evil. And probably also stupid. That is the MOST generous interpretation, mind.

I just don't understand what politics conservatives do other then push for laws that oppress people they don't feel comfortable sharing a space with? I think the real political discussions are just happening within the left. Conservative party kinda needs to just go away, and the left split into socialists, democrats, and maybe independents. American politics and media have driven it's two party system so opposed to each other, there is no mutual agreement anymore, you either take the blue side or the red side to any and all issues, and I'm sorry the red side is just so cartoonishly evil they just stand in the way of progress, or push to go backwards in history.

Modern conservative politics and "polite discussion" are like oil and water.

I'm not sure why "I don't want to see a space become an echo chamber" is always what gets said. Everywhere else IS a right wing echo chamber for the most part? Conservatives aren't the ones chased from reddit and twitter?

What probably isnt welcome is questioning people's right to exist, right to live unmolested because of someone else's beliefs (and real molested, not "i saw a minority existed), and the right to make your own medical choices for yourself and your kids. Considering means testing has been proven a waste and the right opposes taxing fair share, i wouldn't even argue that actual financial conservation is even a point the party makes.

So it's really hard to see what need this space has for those talking points. Unless it's actually about being open to real discussion, which frankly facts aren't often on the side of the right, what good to this community do these ideas offer?

What should be asked is what place does the Right/Conservative philosophy as a whole have in the Lemmy ethos? Is it in and of itself could be argued to be an antithesis to the whole structure and philosophy. Can authoritarian ideals thrive where they cannot take power?

Conservative ideology of maybe twenty years ago would likely have a lot better chance at meaningful discussion as opposed to right now. At this time, the political right in the US have thrown full-throated support for policies that many people (rightfully) feel are abhorrent.

For less repugnant topics, say, fiscal responsibility, that one is also a tough one to talk about seeing as the right is trying to gut every social program they can think of while doing all they can to cut taxes for the rich.

I know there are sane conservatives out there, but until that party steers their ship away from bigotry, hatred, and destroying the middle and lower class, you'll probably not find a lot of discussion. Which is a shame because I think we do need two strong parties with differing viewpoints, but when the other viewpoint is rampant discrimination and further enriching the wealthy.

If by "conservative/right wing opinions" you mean the current extremist fascist opinionated MAGA-'my way or the highway' brand of Republicanism, then I sure as hell hope it's unwelcome on Lemmy instances.

If you wish to bring back reason and logic into conservative/right-wing opinions (such as limited government, which means NOT legislating their brand of morality), then I'm all for those viewpoints (not that I would agree with them wholesale, but it's a discussion I'd be willing to take part in).

The real problem with this discourse is that current climate of conservatism is completely closed to reason and logic, completely embraces lies and conspiracy theories as factual, and basically wishes to see all liberals either dead or suffering in some way.

So yeah, keep that shit off Lemmy instances.

I hope you're enjoying the discussion, and I hope you are understanding a lot of the excellent points made here, because I have not seen you engaging with anyone so far, at least not in the Hot replies. I was hoping to see that engagement. I don't have much to add that has not already been added. It's hard to unwrap the hate and bigotry from conservative ideology nowadays. Even so-called mainstream conservative ideas like "tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy will create more money and prosperity for everyone" rings pretty hollow after over 40 years of that sort of ideology having been very thoroughly put into practice with very little benefit one could name. It's hard to engage when you can just sort of gesture to the current state of things and the lives of people who have grown up in the last 4 decades as being self-evident of the failure of that idea.

Basically, I ask, what does conservatism have to offer, really? I am completely open-minded and would listen, but you would have to do better than just repeating the same tired things I have heard my whole life, having grown up in a conservative catholic household and over 43 years slowly but surely drifting to the socialist atheist person I am now. Better believe I've heard a lot and am well-read. And there are a lot of people out there just like me.

Honestly, my big thing with right-wingers is that they come with no proof, and get mad when you start asking for facts and figures. Right now, I can see the effects of 40 years of trickle-down economic theory: it means that you need a degree to get just about any decent job in this country, and also unions should not exist because reasons. It really kind of biases me against right-wing talking points, to the point that I need to see proof. Treat it like a math problem and show your work or gtfo.

Conservatives I can deal with, but modern right wingers have lost their goddamn minds.

And the entire issue is that a lot of people who view themselves as moderate conservatives are enabling this ideological brain rot by not vocally disassociating it with more reasonable conservative positions. Because of that, I am way more comfortable saying that conservative voices should be viewed with suspicion than I used to be.

Right wing opinions should be less welcome everywhere.

Depends entirely on the Instance and the rules they enforce. Here on Beehaw specifically? This is primarily an instance for safety and inclusivity and the people here are, naturally, not going to look positively on right wing opinions.

I feel like it's not a matter of which side and more if the position that someone tries to advertise is clearly lacking empathy or consideration towards others.

If that's all the right-leaning topics are about, I don't know what to tell you really.

Wouldn't that depend on the historic understanding of GOP politics in the United States? There was a time when the Democrats were the problematic group and the GOP were not...the tables have flipped. For me, personally, I am invested in Beehaw's 'Northern Star' or guiding principle -> be(e) nice.

I sure hope so.

I think you're seeing backlash against being involuntarily exposed to (and often pushed to see) unbridled and deranged hatred and fear on traditional socmedia.

A conservative opinion like "I'm not sure communism is practical" is something that can be engaged with pretty cordially, "I think that education should focus on marketable skills" is an opinion I think is pretty misinformed but it's not something that exhausts me.

Unfortunately a lot of online conservatism is stuff like "I think there's a conspiracy by $minority to mind control us with vaccines" or "Should we be trying to make queer people afraid?" which aren't positions you can engage with.

What opinions do you mean specifically? The question you asked is too vague to help us sort out the welcome from the unwelcome.

Remember: “lower taxes for businesses” is a mainstream conservative opinion, but so are “children should not be allowed to know of the existence of gay people” and also “Breonna Taylor probably deserved to die” and also “Dr. Fauci is a mass murderer” and also “Trump won in 2020” and also “more brown children should be put in those cages”, etc., etc., etc.

If the conservative mainstream is so hateful and bigoted that most of their opinions would not be allowed on a well-regulated platform, that is not the fault of the platform and it does not suggest that the platform has to change just to accommodate conservatives.

I think we have to be mindful of the fact that 'conservative' means different things in different countries politically and there's also a continuum on which conservatives (like left folk) are. I'm in the UK and personally loathe the Tories, but even within the Tory party there are more moderate conservatives as well as the batshit ones. Similarly, our Labour party is divided between the more socialist side of things and the centre ground side of the party. Also you can have fiscally conservative values but also be liberal/left leaning on other policy areas.

There's nuance to be had and I don't think talking in absolutes helps anyone. We can't gain a greater understanding of how our world works if we shield ourselves from opposing perspectives.

That said, those on the transphobic, homophobic, racist side of the spectrum should 100% not be welcomed. No tolerance for intolerance.

It would be a shame if this community was just focused on the US, but at the same time maybe the community is a bit broad? At some point it might make sense to segment the community and define it more so one country doesn't dominate discussion

I would say it's not strictly prohibited, it's more about the attitude and treatment towards other people. The modern conservative attitudes lately have been focused around hate and discrimination of minority groups and foreigners. It's extremely hard to look past that and the other outrageous alt right views related to anti-vax, 5g conspiracy theories, etc. A lot of loud conservative figures have been pushing anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-womens rights, anti-poor regulations and this is not welcome here. This makes it hard to accept a conservative viewpoint.

If the discussion is focused around political views for the economy, government regulation, etc, and engages in civil discussion and disagreement, a willingness to attempt to understand the other person's view, and not resorting to insults or hate, then differing viewpoints are not exactly a problem. Anything suggesting that minority groups or other humans are inferior or don't have a right to exist or have personal rights and freedoms is definitely not welcome.

In short, it's difficult to say due to the modern conservative "hot topics" which dehumanize groups of people. Being conservative doesn't automatically mean you aren't welcome here but hate and discrimination are certainly not welcome.

I wouldn't conflate "liberal" with "progressive," or, "leftist."

Very different things.

I guess it depends on which conservative or right wing opinions you're talking about.

The traditional conservative opinion of smaller government hasn't existed now for 50 years. Reagan, Bush, and Trump all grew the size of government.

The conservative talking point of "states rights!" flies in the face of states who want safe and legal abortions, or equal access to marriage rights, or the ability to acknowledge that LGBTQ+ kids actually exist.

Similarly if you're talking about the conservative push to make it harder for black and brown people to vote, and make no mistake about it, they are specifically targeting black and brown people.

Let's not even open the door to the fringe anti-vax or "election was stolen" movements.

So with all that conservative messaging off the table, what are you left with, honestly?

It's kind of a loaded question, and I'm not saying you intended it that way, but people have become increasingly more aware of how slanted the frame around the political spectrum has become -- there's an unwillingness to engage with discussion within that frame because to do so is to accept ideological and rhetorical handicaps that have been purposefully constructed to put non-right wing ideas at a disadvantage (not constructed by you, but more as a systematic result of right-wing media and politicians).

The question of "are conservative ideas welcome" is a discussion that requires a lot of unpacking due to implicit ideas that are buried deep under layers of history and lots of incremental changes to what we accept as normal in political discussion.

To give an example of what I mean by "framing", consider two people have agreed to debate about public healthcare. We'll say this has been a very publicized event, people have been watching a lot of pre-debate media coverage. Suppose the person with the anti-public healthcare position has been using this publicity not to outline their position for private healthcare, but has spent a lot of time recounting crimes and atrocities committed under communist regimes, and repeatedly substituting "socialism" for communism as if they were synonymous words. They perhaps even get their interviewer to accept and use that language, further legitimizing it.

Now the day of the debate comes and when the anti-public healthcare figure says "Public healthcare is socialist" his audience will hear "Public healthcare is communist, and communism leads to atrocities". He doesn't have to state that explicitly or make an argument because he has primed his audience and created a frame in which his opponent now has to either derail into a debate about the differences between socialized medicine and communism and risk losing the audience, or they let the implication go unaddressed and work within the frame created for them even though it's fabricated from misinformation that puts them at a rhetorical disadvantage.

So what does this have to do with conservative ideas being welcome or not welcome? Right-wing media have been the absolute masters of this tactic for decades. Here in the US it was shortly after Nixon was impeached that they really leaned into it. Up to that point the government had more or less a deference to academia and experts to inform their policy creation. When Nixon was impeached, people like Roger Ailes immediately began constructing a parallel political infrastructure to that academic institution (which tended by its very nature to lean towards progress), from which they could frame things not from a scientific and academic basis, but from a corporate and conservative one.

So people have begun waking up to the consequences of allowing that machine to run rough-shod all over our society, and now they've started rejecting the entire notion that they should have to engage with the products of that dishonest right-wing political machine or to accept it as equally legitimate to academic and scientific institutions. Some people may express that unwillingness in a more hostile, impatient way than others.

I saw you mention some British public figures -- I don't know if you're from the UK or US, but Jon Stewart had an interesting discussion with Ian Hislop comparing the effects of the Murdoch media empire on both the US and Britain. They touch on some of the stuff I'm talking about. Some food for thought maybe.

If by conservative you mean "you and your friends don't deserve human rights because I don't like you" then hopefully you're not welcome.

is Conservative/Right Wing opinions completely unwelcome on Lemmy?

Yes.

In addition to what others have said, i think it really depends on what ones frame is for "conservative". Much of what the US would consider left-wing is what I, being in europe, would consider center-right, for example.

I just don’t want Lemmy to become a echo chamber for any side and it seems to be that way when it comes to politics already.

a political space leaning towards a certain side is, naturally, going to be an echo chamber. i mean, couldn't i just call every right-leaning space a conservative echo chamber too? imo, we need to stop perpetuating the myth that "neutral" spaces are normal, & "echo chambers" are some new bad thing that the leftists keep doing to shield themselves from information. when people call a group an "echo chamber", what they really mean is "a group that shows bias", & because it's natural for humans to show bias, most social hierarchies we form tend to naturally bias towards certain opinions too.

every group of humans, whether on the internet or in real life, is an echo chamber that reflects the beliefs & opinions of the most active users. there's always a majority opinion, & from what i've experienced groups that try to avoid their biases just tend to turn into places that feel completely unnatural to talk in, where everyone dances around eggshells what they truly believe but end up letting it bleed through anyway. & from the introductory posts that describe the spirit of this site, that situation the exact opposite of what this instance was made for.

so while it's not strictly against the rules to be conservative, & i don't think it's fair to say that conservative opinions are completely unwelcome on beehaw* (there are definitely conservative & center-right leaning instances out there so i don't think it's fair to ask about all of lemmy in the title), if you're looking for other people here to agree with you, well bad news - a leftist bias here will be unavoidable. if you choose to participate here, you just have to accept the fact that this instance is made up primarily of leftist users, & thus threads here always be naturally biased primarily towards leftists opinions.

Differing opinions and perspectives, when able to be discussed rationally and with sufficient emotional awareness of others.

Arguments like, "my book says what you're doing is murder", "being who you are is a sin" leave no room for sensible discussion, and in many contexts amount to hateful conduct which is not welcome here. Remember that be(e)ing nice holds paramount, which puts a threshold on how heated arguments should get on Beehaw.

I've conversed and debated with conservatives a lot. While we might think the other is misguided in their opinion, we often have a productive discussion. Speaking in broad generalities, conservatives tend to believe in a universal, immovable moral structure, whereas liberals tend to believe in more nuances morality that works dynamically based on context and varies from person to person. It's not an easy barrier to overcome, but with some efforts from both you and your debate opponent it is possible.

Two things are important to me when I debate. First, I try to reiterate their argument so that I am not misunderstanding it before I say may own. Second, I highlight and clarify where specifically our beliefs differ and where they overlap. The reason I do this, is that I debate others not to just be a shouting match where the loudest opinion wins, but find mutual understanding even in disagreement.

We all need less stupid, bigoted, selfish, aggressive, and violence-supporting people in our lives.

Posts like this are why this server needs to bring back downvotes

Depends on what we call "right wing".

I keep asking, and have probably asked more than fifty times over the last 4 years, what right-wing Americans stand for other than the "culture war". Why would someone call themselves a conservative/Republican if they are opposed to the Republicans' stances on minorities, stances on LGBT+, stances on gestures broadly at Florida, etc. What's left of the ideology when you take those things out, especially considering that the right has pretty demonstrably dropped their support for "fiscal responsibility", "small government", "anti-judicial activism", and "opposing the influence of Russia".

Most of the time, that question just gets ghosted. Like, over 90% of the times I've asked it, it's just been a conversation-ender. The rest of the time, the answers boil down to "my bigotry is more fine-grained than that". They're good friends with Mexicans and Asians and African-Americans, but hate Muslims. Or they're fine with gay people, but feel transgender people shouldn't exist. Or they love gay people and minorities, as long as they're all Christian whether they want to be or not. These folks call themselves Republicans not because they hate everyone the Republican party hates, but because they hate one (or a few) groups that the Republicans hate.