“Why won’t women, objects meant to feed and pleasure me, give me the time of day like this super old-ass book I had read and interpreted to me by someone who is likely a child molester said they should? Do they worship Saytahn?”
It's pure projection. They put up a wall thinking that they're the ones choosing, but they're actually the ones that aren't attractive to others because of the black-and-white way they see the world.
It ain’t a conspiracy if it’s happening in front of your own eyes. Any thoughts on the gay song about ‘coming for your children’? I’m sure you’re going to say it’s just tongue-and-cheek humor.
My answer to that song would be: We live in a multicultural world and if you don’t teach your kids to accept other peoples choices they say that they will.
The more bigoted parents are, and the more parents say “Stay away from them!” the more teenagers are drawn to the LGBT community and will see that its their parents that’s wrong.
Sounds like you're suffering from an acute case of 'feels before reals' to me.
Not particularly surprising or shocking that women are less likely to date men who vote conservative. Ignoring the simple fact that the data suggests America is becoming less tolerant of intolerance, and that conservatives are increasingly out of step with majority opinion, the recent abortion thing is a real lady boner killer, as is making excuses for a convicted sex offender.
Straw man. I never said trans men have no advantage. Keep to the topic at hand, rather than trying to go on a tangent. It's transparent, and many will assume you're doing it because you know you can't win the argument.
Conservative guys complain about women not wanting to date them. People date people they share values with.
Assuming non-conservative women are all 'whores' who sleep around is incel nonsense. If they're choosing not to date conservative men, a large proportion of men, if anything they're being selective. The opposite of being promiscuous. Data also suggests young women have less sex than previous generations. Most sex happens in long term stable relationships.
If you assume the rest of us know what a MAP is, you've likely spent too much time in an echo chamber. It's pretty weird if I'm honest, like if someone mentioned a scientology term and assumed average people knew what they were talking about.
I would be glad
But you're not happy about it, are you? Be honest with yourself. You wouldn't call them whores if you were happy about it. You would live and let live.
Go to any online community full of incels and you’ll see they’re all conservative - and that their conservative ideals have a huge impact on how they treat women.
Incels have less to do with politics and more to do with personal experiences they’ve had. You’re bringing in politics where it doesn’t belong. If they start waving the LGTV flag, that still isn’t going to get them pussy.
I wish the rest of the conservatives would agree with you, but here they are banging on about ‘women shouldn’t be able to divorce their husbands’ and whining online about ‘the great replacement’ because we don’t want to fuck them
Lol, I swear - “you’re taking our rights “ I’m not sure what rights they’re bitching about but I’m assuming it’s abortion this time. To take away your abortion rights someone has to be willing to nut inside you first.
The last conservative I matched with was immediately bragging about being unvaccinated, was in his late 30’s, openly religious, desperate for kids.
If you’re openly conservative, you’re baring your soul about women’s rights, and if women don’t want to sleep with you as a result, you made your damn bed.
Some women dig that. Not every woman believes the same things you do. There’s even a thing called the quiver full movement where people like the duggars deliberately have as many children as possible to outnumber people like you.
If there’s women who dig it, that’s their bag, but I’ve absolutely experienced an influx of conservative dudes trying to match with me and I’m openly liberal. Wild that these women exist but the dudes don’t seem as into them.
Because these guys don’t want the full trade off of gender roles the conservatives promote. Many conservative women expect dating with the intent of marriage and at some point having the husband be able to support a household where the wife stays home and takes care of the house and children.
Accidentally deleted but yeah I’ve noticed an influx of conservative men matching with me despite clear indications that I’m liberal. Unfortunately I do know these sorts of women exist, but maybe conservative men should seek them out instead of someone clearly liberal who doesn’t want to make their body a baby factory.
Alternately, because she’s attractive and some guys are idiots. For some guys “looks” overrides everything else.
It’s unreal how many guy will date a flat out manipulative, immature, mean asshole because she’s “hot”. Compared to that a decent human being is a catch, regardless of if they’re fundamentally incompatible.
That’s been Catholicism’s playbook since day one. There’s a reason they’re so against any kind of sex that doesn’t lead to procreation.
Course, it also used to be rooted in the fact that medicine was trash for a long time, and a lot of kids died, so you’d want to have as many as you could to give some a shot at living a full life. But that’s not the case anymore, so yeah, the only reasons to have as many kids as possible is as you say, to outnumber the sane people, and to keep the working class populated, so we inch closer and closer to Idiocracy becoming reality every day.
I don’t know why. I’m about as pale as you can get, and it is by far the WEAKEST of skin colors. We literally cannot go out in the sun without protection.
Sure, everyone should wear sunscreen, but I can get burnt walking out to the mailbox!
Ah. Sounds like you have fine genes my friend. The best genes.
Have you considered endless breeding?
Not only is it a lot of fun, but you can pass on those great genes you got there.
For real though, I have a red headed daughter and one that should have been a redhead. She got everything but the hair. The freckles, the pale blue eyes. A beam of light comes through the window and she starts smoking. Someone turns on a 100W lightbulb and she blisters. I get what you’re saying.
Most women (and men) believe the things their parents teach them.
The thing with conservatives is they want to 1) prevent any other information flowing to these women, religious indoctrination only 2) get these women pregnant young so that they don’t have a chance to gain independence
So yeah in those cases you have grown women who believe these things. The Duggars are an example of the ‘quiver full’ movement in action. Letting their son abuse their daughters young so that they get used to it and defend it as normal.
My parents used to fearmonger the everliving shit about LGBTQ+ and abortion, and as a small kid I ate that shit up. But then at some point, my brain probably developed some modicum of critical thinking and thought, wait a minute, why in the world does it matter to me what people do with their own lives, if it doesn’t even affect me or anyone else for that matter? Why are my parents, along with every single bigot, incorrectly think that they are entitled to weigh in on someone else’s life decisions?
Every single argument from them boils down to “because religion”, but as someone who was raised Catholic (agnostic now), one of the things that they taught me was quite literally to “love thy neighbour” and to not shit on people only because of their beliefs. So why are the very same people who taught me that now doing the opposite of what they preach, trying (and fortunately failing) to shit on other people just because they don’t have the same beliefs? “My religion says it’s not OK,” well they don’t believe in the same things you do and could not give less of a shit about what you believe, so why not just leave them alone and let them live their life? It was around that point that I realised they were just hypocrites, and absolutely nothing more.
I grew up extremely conservative christian (homeschooled, no tv, women don’t work outside the house) and was taught that anything other than married man and women was evil.
The thing is we were also taught critical thinking and logic albeit it was to compare “new teachings” against the bible. My parents always said since the bible is true [sic] it would stand up to any scrutiny. They thankfully never learned the lesson most christian leaders have that Christianity needs to be mandated for it to be effective. Obviously the bible did not hold up to logic and I’m now a proud atheist and in the process of healing.
Man, that’s worse than what I experienced growing up. Out of curiosity, why did you decide to go with atheism? Personally, I’m agnostic (I think that’s the right term) because I see no compelling evidence or argument for either side, and I am of the opinion that a human’s finite brain could never even come close to figuring out the answer. And no, the Bible isn’t evidence, not one that’s even close to being the slightest bit rigorous at least. To me, it’s as much evidence for Christianity as the Harry Potter books are for wizardry.
That’s not entirely true, most definitions of Agnosticism frame it as a different position from Atheism.
Plus, you don’t have to prove something to believe it, if you’re convinced that there is no god you can define yourself an Atheist, that’s it. Agnostics are just “on the fence” and have no horse in the race.
the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
It is not related to actual knowledge. No matter the claims one can make, no one can be 100% sure whether a god exists or not. It’s called “faith” because people choose to believe despite the lack of irrefutable evidence.
Belief, on the other hand, is definitely a spectrum and you can be convinced or skeptical of affirmations from both sides. There’s also apatheists that simply don’t care whether it exists or not, or Ignostics that question the question itself. There’s plenty of people “on the fence”. The definition of Nontheism for example encompasses all those three, but not Atheism.
Agnostic Atheism is a position that’s very close to Atheism, but not all Agnostics are Agnostic Atheists.
I relate a lot to this. If asked “does God exist?”, my personal belief is always that we don’t know and that we will never know, and it doesn’t matter anyways so why bother? I do certainly see some value in religion, in that it does bring a lot of people comfort when faced with the concept of mortality, and that religious organisations do a lot of charity (this is true where I come from, at least). However, I do think that said value has been greatly diminished, if not perhaps even eliminated entirely, in the face of the attrocities people have committed in the name of religion, i.e. attempts at restricting women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, etc.
Belief is not a choice, you’re either convinced or you’re not.
Wikipedia can also be wrong on various topics so let’s not get nitpicky. But, if you want to look up Gnosticism on Wikipedia, you’ll see that being a gnostic means having knowledge.
So people can be either theists or atheists and at the same time gnostic or agnostic.
A gnostic theist would mean they believe and also know a god exists.
An angostic atheist doesn’t believe and also doesn’t know a god doesn’t exists. That’s most of us atheists.
So people can’t be on the fence and say I’m agnostic, that doesn’t tell anything about what they believe.
And when it comes to belief, you are either convinced or you’re not. There’s no middle ground.
I think we’re just entering semantics at this point. “Agnostic” has been used plenty of times as a position in itself separate from “Atheist”: even Thomas H. Huxley, who created the term, saw it as a specifically distinct thing from atheism, and so did Darwin and Ross at the time.
You can indeed have middle ground on beliefs, and the term has been invented for that exact reason: Huxley didn’t feel like he fit in any of the definitions that existed at the time.
The journey went: disappointment with God, angry at God, apathetic, agnostic, then atheist. I considered myself agnostic for a long time but it always felt a bit like a compromise for me, like it’s more palatable to think “Oh, I just don’t know one way or another” over seeing god as a stopgap for holes in knowledge.
Rather than the approach of attributing less and less to the divine over time, I decided to attribute nothing and go from there.
Saying that one can’t disprove god’s existence feels the same to me as saying a watermelon is blue inside until it’s observed.
Regarding your last point, we only know that the flesh of a watermelon is indeed red because we’ve seen it before. If, say, an alien would suddenly come to Earth and be presented with a watermelon, they would not know what colour it is without cracking it open or otherwise probing it with various tools (granted of course that they perceive colour like we do)
Attributing nothing to the divine is also the way I go about it. We have scientific explanations for most phenomenon we see on a daily basis, and for those we do not, I do think we will find scientific explanations for them one day. None of the mysteries of the universe that would later be answered have been caused by the supernatural, so I have no reason to think it will be different.
However, I do think that a lack of observable trace of a “divine being” is not necessarily an evidence of nonexistence. To me, my agnosticism is not a form of compromise, but a recognition of the limitations of humans, as well as an acknowledgement relative inconsequence the question of whether a divine being exists or not is to the universe and to my own life. If nothing in my life or in the known universe can be attributed to the divine, why does it matter whether it exists or not? If an extraterrestrial exists in some distant galaxy, surely it would not matter to them whether I exist or not. That’s the way I think of the idea of divine beings.
Anyways, it’s kind of great to be able to ramble about this on the internet, most of the people I know are religious and unfortunately would not be very tolerant of this type of viewpoint.
You seem to have confused Conservative politics with Fundamentalist Christianity. They are separate ideals but hard to find separately currently. Somebody can be a fiscal conservative and not buy into the social fundamental conservative position.
Check again, conservatives are no longer fiscally conservative and have not been for several decades. That facade has entirely fallen away to reveal the real:
fundamentalist christians
racists
filthy rich people who want tax cuts for the rich (do not confuse this with being fiscally conservative)
Those two sentences are unrelated since the GOP is pretty explicitly against freedom of speech given all their book banning and don't say gay bills and the like. Unless you're defining freedom of speech their absolutely brain dead way they use it of 'We're free to openly be as big of a piece of shit as we like with no consequences. If you use your freedom of speech to call us out, or use your freedom of association to kick us off your property you're oppressing us' in which case yeah, that's still a bad policy, naming a bad policy after a good one to trick people doesn't make it a good policy
Freedom of speech means you can’t be arrested for what you say. Any policies that ban certain types of speech are very clearly unconstitutional.
We’re free to openly be as big of a piece of shit as we like with no consequences. If you use your freedom of speech to call us out, or use your freedom of association to kick us off your property you’re oppressing us
Using freedom of speech to defend your opinion is literally saying “my opinion is valid because it’s not illegal”.
So the GOP is by policy against freedom of speech as you've defined it, and is passing laws that are unconstitutional, and thus the initial mention of freedom of speech is a non sequitur not intended as an example of GOP policy that isn't bad, got it, glad we established that. So do you have any examples of policies the GOP does have that aren't bad?
That is exactly what fiscally conservative means. That’s 100% what I expect when a politician has conservative economic views. Conservatives value keeping the status quo, and the status quo is capitalism, with the rich getting richer.
yeah, but people not in the know think it just means ‘prudent government spending’. What it actually means is funnel as much money from the government/taxpayer to the existing rich as possible. I think we are saying the same thing, cheers
That has nothing to do with conservatism. Just because some people who are conservative said that, doesn’t mean that that’s a part of it. Please attack specific ideas, not groups of people.
Of course not. What’s unreasonable is the tribalistic, us vs them attitude based on poorly applied labels that leave no room for constructive discussion.
People calling themselves “Conservatives” these days are actually reformers who are about the least conservative bunch you’ll ever find. No true Scotsman conservative would join a death cult.
Except they still call themselves conservatives and they still keep voting for people who openly state they want to oppress women and minorities
You can’t explain your way out of it the mask is off. If you identify as conservative in modern America you are undeniably supporting fascist ideologies.
Why is it the only time I ever hear the word “fiscal” is when a conservative is defending their entire half of the political sphere 😂 let’s all look past the human rights abuses and absurd gerrymandering/rigging of the entire democratic system and just think about the “fiscal responsibility” aspect (That, paradoxically, only ever actually seems to drive the national debt up faster when conservatives are in charge)
Good lord the replies to this are sad. Believe it or not it’s a perfectly reasonable expectation to only want to date someone whose core beliefs align with yours (and, y’know, actually respects your rights as an independent human being.)
This is what so many of them think. If they really don’t have a problem dating someone left leaning it either means they get off on tearing down strong women or don’t really know what they believe and are still just parroting mommy and daddy’s beliefs.
As someone with a right-wing father and a left-wing mother: for fuck’s sake date people with your same beliefs. Deep disagreement on something like that is NOT something you can build a trustful relationship upon.
Holy shit, I can’t imagine being in such a relationship even just for a small amount of time. Having kids with someone I fundamentally disagree with is just on another level.
I guess if you’re not into politics/news at all, it can kind of happen. 🤷
Admittedly, we’re not in the US so the divide is much smaller, but Jesus Christ listening to them arguing over half the stuff that came up on TV has definitely not been a pleasant experience.
“in looking for a woman who will respect my core beliefs as an independent human being, which include not treating her like an independent human being”
The comments under that vid are fucking hilarious. If I go any further left I’ll fall off the universe, but I also live a self-reliant life in the forest where I chop my own wood, fetch my water from a creek, run and maintain solar installations, and treat my wife like the wonderful human she is. All while being the traditional provider and ‘manly’ man. My truck is big, because it needs to be when you are building a house and homestead with your own hands.
And all these parking lot cowboys in their spotless lifted trucks think that these values are ‘theirs’. Get fucked losers.
It’s fine to have dating preferences. The issue is when people who are just calling anyone who is conservative leaning terrible. If you don’t agree with someone’s political ideology, you should just respectfully disagree, not call them a terrible person.
Also, calling people evil for their options is a terribly way to convince them to change, it just makes them get really defensive. If you want to convince someone to change opinion, you need to have a respectful, insightful discussion.
The meme here didn’t even call anyone evil. That said, if you guys don’t want to be called evil, stop supporting evil shit.
Conservative policies not only rob women of the rights to their own bodies, it gets them killed too. Either conservatives openly support this or they’re somehow too naive to see what the politicians they vote for are doing, and both are good reasons for women to stay the hell away from them.
I’m genuinely curious what reason someone has to support them. Like genuinely. I look at Republicans and am like how the fuck can anyone that isn’t rich and in power be on that side? And then I remember the very potent tactics of fearmongering
who are just calling anyone who is conservative leaning terrible. If you don’t agree with someone’s political ideology, you should just respectfully disagree, not call them a terrible person.
but they are?? they advocate for oppression of any other group thats not them. why would you respect a person that wishes your disappearance???
But being racist isn’t an automatic loss of a vote for most conservatives. Sure - You can be conservative and not racist, but if you are voting for conservatives who are racist… What is the difference?
What exactly is the GOP doing that is racist? Isn’t racism explicitly unconstitutional? If a candidate was racist, I wouldn’t vote for them.
But I haven’t seen explanations for what they do that is racist. It’s just people who are calling them racist, and saying you’re dumb if you don’t think they’re racist.
I doubt you actually looked up what I’m talking about. Yes, both parties gerrymander, which I agree is an issue. But republican states keep getting sued due to unconstitutionally drawn maps that try to silence the black vote as much as possible
I hate to tell you this but that is the definition from like 30 years ago. If you look at their behavior now, they do the exact opposite (see basically any policy they’ve passed in the last 2 years)
It’s not the numerous postal service designations that people are pissed at though. It’s the bills that are making my friends flee the state that people are rightly pissed at. Not every republican is an extremist, but the extremists have control over the party and the rest of the party seems completely fine with them at the wheel. Either it’s extreme apathy or tacit agreement.
How do you have a respectful or insightful discussion with someone uninterested in being respectful or having insight?
How do you explain the suffering caused by separating children from parents at the border to someone who doesn’t see those people as human? To someone who thinks they deserve to suffer for existing in the wrong color of skin? At what point do you call a spade a spade?
I see conservative men getting with conservative women all the time, if they’re complaining about nothing being available they need to look at themselves in the mirror or look in different places (maybe hip, urban environments aren’t the best places to date for conservatives?) Switching up politics isn’t some magic solution to getting laid.
I think we run in different crowds. One of my friends once confessed to making out with a trumpster, didn’t even go further. It was considered a point of shame and we made fun of him the rest of the night. I firmly stand by my role in reaffirming sanctions.
This kind of shit was a big motivation for me to leave reddit, and now it’s already on Lemmy. Great.
You can have right leaning beliefs and not be a bigot. Hell, I’m not even right leaning but many of my friends and family are. They are not racist, sexist, transphobic… This kind of post just makes the left look childish.
ETA: you can have conservative views and not vote republican. The republican party is a fucking joke.
Sure you can lean conservative but if in the modern era you’re supporting and voting republican you’re either in denial, or complicit. There’s not much the Republicans have in common with conservative values these days.
Exactly. What’s so conservatism about trying to murder congress and overthrow American democracy again, like what happened on Jan. 6? These traitors sure aren’t trying to preserve the Union, that’s for damn sure.
Your friends and family might not be vocally bigoted, but actions speak louder than words and if they’re voting for a party that platforms on racism, sexism, and transphobia, then they are bigots. I hardly think it’s childish to avoid dating someone who would support a party that wants to strip your rights away.
Also, Lemmy has always been like this. You came to the wrong fuckin’ place, my dude.
No, what we look like is people who’ve tried to give the benefit of the doubt for ages and gotten fucked for it. We’ve run out of benefit to give. Conservatives are actively hurting people in North America (probably elsewhere too) and we see ourselves and our children on the chopping block if we keep giving leeway. So we’ve stopped. You’ll keep seeing more of this until conservatives stop hurting people. This meme is just a funny reflection of that. Maybe it’s even gonna make some gears spin in some people’s heads.
Exactly! You cannot support that party and be surprised when you get called a bigot. You’re playing with pigs and you smell like shit, bud. Conservative values eventually turn into hateful ideology 100% of the time. Conservatism requires someone to blame for everything, and they never blame the people actually at fault, they blame minority groups that are easy to attack and exploit.
Being conservative doesn’t make you a bigot. Being liberal doesn’t make you a bigot. What makes you a bigot is hating someone just for disagreeing with you, or being part of a different group.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Assuming someone is evil just because they like Trump is quite literally bigotry. You shouldn’t hate anyone just because of their ideas. Attack actions and ideas, not people.
As I said it’s because the extreme right wing is allowed to dictate what happens, while the rest is just sitting there silently and voting in line with the party.
You can’t tell the difference between silence and agreement.
It’s easier to ignore when it’s not your loved ones at risk. I’ll stop giving a shit when people finally just live and let live. I’ll chill out when people can live their own lives in peace, without worrying about unprovoked violence. I’ll cool down about it when the murder rates go down. I’ll relax when people stop forcing women to bear rapists children. I’ll calm when people stop trying to remove human rights.
It’s simple, really. If you are against human rights, I want nothing to do with you. If you encourage or support people losing human rights, I want nothing to do with you. If you don’t care about these things because it isn’t you, we certainly won’t get along. I’m over “Wait and see”, because it ends with innocent people dead.
Abortion isn’t a simple human rights issue. Every human has a right to choose what happens to their body, and every human has a right to live.
But with pregnancy, these rights are at odds with each other. Who’s right is more important, the right of the baby to be born, or the right of the mother to not give birth? And at exactly what moment does this change?
Her body, her choice. The fetus is a parasitic clump of cells until it comes- out of the womb, and it is entirely up to her what she wants to do with it. The fetus does not have the right to be born as it is a clump of parasitic cells, not a person. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental right, the government cannot force you to donate blood, even if it would kill someone else who needs it if you didn’t. So why should a woman have to carry around an unwanted parasite that does permanent, often harmful changes to her body and can sometimes kill her?
The fetus is a parasitic clump of cells until it comes- out of the womb
An embryo is a clump of cells. A fetus is an incomplete human body.
The fetus does not have the right to be born as it is a clump of parasitic cells, not a person.
Almost everyone agrees that sperm or unfertilized eggs don’t have rights, but they do agree that a newborn baby has rights. At exactly what moment does it switch?
the government cannot force you to donate blood, even if it would kill someone else
There’s a difference between mandating and banning a medical procedure. (Birth is different, that will happen without any intervention).
can sometimes kill her?
If the mothers life is in danger, then an abortion makes sense.
This is not an easy ethical question with a right and wrong answer. Just because you feel strongly about your answer, doesn’t mean it is correct.
Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Just supporting some policies of someone who is a bigot doesn’t mean you support their bigoted policies.
OK. Let me try. Trump espouses bigoted and non-bigoted policies. A person likes the non-bigoted ones. They vote for Trump. Their vote put Trump over the line. Trump enacts both the non-bigoted and bigoted policies. The person in question’s vote was the cause of bigoted policies being deployed. Policies that hurt other people. Does it matter whether the person supported Trump’s bigoted policies? The end result is the same. The person supporting Trump resulted in bigoted policies hurting people. That person bears responsibility in that result, as someone who voted for Trump. So what we’re saying is - you can’t hide your responsibility behind the book definition of a bigot. You could try but we see the results in reality and we will judge you by the results of your actions. We’re saying - look - your actions constitute bigotry in practice whether you realize it or not, and if you really believe that you’re not a bigot and you don’t want to be one, perhaps think about the results of your actions and what they produce in reality. Maybe don’t vote Trump next time. Replace Trump with any GOP bigot and the person in question with any American that’s in a similar position.
With the way our government works, it’s really hard to not vote for candidates that you don’t have at least some problems with. With the way presentational elections seem to be going, you end up having to choose which one is less bad. And in FPTP, voting for a third party is basically useless.
And not every GOP candidate is a bigot. I’m sure most, if not all of them, genuinely wish for the country to be better (same thing applies for any politician). It’s just that disagreement over how to make the country better had devolved into name calling, which is a terrible way to get people to change their opinions.
I don’t change my opinion because someone calls me a bigot. I’ll change my opinion if they can show me how my view is flawed, and why their view is better.
With the way our government works, it’s really hard to not vote for candidates that you don’t have at least some problems with. With the way presentational elections seem to be going, you end up having to choose which one is less bad. And in FPTP, voting for a third party is basically useless.
And yet that doesn’t change the dynamics of what I described. This is why every voter who has problems with whoever they’re considering voting for should be weighing the bad parts. We know how GOP voters weigh the bigotry that comes with voting for its reps. That’s all we need to know. The truth is literally laid bare.
I’m sure most, if not all of them, genuinely wish for the country to be better (same thing applies for any politician).
That’s a nice thought. I see you still haven’t run out of benefit of the doubt to give.
I don’t change my opinion because someone calls me a bigot. I’ll change my opinion if they can show me how my view is flawed, and why their view is better.
That’s your prerogative. We’ve ran out of arguments to give. “We” is the many people I know who are of this opinion. I’ve yet to meet a conservative that’s arguing in good faith and is willing to change their view when presented with a sound argument. That’s where we’re at and it ain’t our fault. We’ve spent years of our lives trying and gotten nowhere. The radicalization is just getting started.
We know how GOP voters weigh the bigotry that comes with voting for its reps. That’s all we need to know. The truth is literally laid bare.
Bigotry is a 2 way street. Candidates from both sides are clearly bigoted at each other. I try to vote for candidates who’s beliefs match with mine, but sometimes that’s hard. Everyone deserves to be respected, even if you don’t agree with them. But so much politics has just turned into calling names.
That’s a nice thought. I see you still haven’t run out of benefit of the doubt to give.
I think the issues are systemic, not individual. It doesn’t make sense that so many people would be evil. Look at the Milgram experiment. It shows that the average person will literally commit murder in the correct environment. So does that mean the average person is evil?
I’ve yet to meet a conservative that’s arguing in good faith and is willing to change their view when presented with a sound argument.
I am. Although I’m not just conservative. It really depends on the subject, sometimes I’m conservative, and sometimes I’m liberal. I really want to avoid just picking one side, and saying the other side is evil.
I don’t see how people who aren’t racist, sexist or transphobic could vote for conservatives when 75% of Republican campaigning (other than “guns and taxes!”) is focused on being racist, sexist and transphobic. People who aren’t any of those things are turned off by it and would not vote for republicans.
While true I think, as long as you’re not some kind of an extremist, your political views don’t matter that much, unless you’re in America. Most people have their opinions vary on the political spectrum, some views are conservative while others are liberal. But in America it seems like you’re either 100% liberal or 100% conservative and anything inbetween is hated by both sides. So you have to know if they’re with you or against you.
Lemmy was created by communists for communists, conservatives, “centrists” and liberals gtfo out
You can have right leaning beliefs and not be a bigot
the entirety of conservativism is openly classist, the entire ideology is built on ruthlessly attacking and stripping away protection for those most vulnerable in society. Besides, just because your family wont openly call me a slur for being trans it doesnt mean they aren’t supporting a party who market themselves on wanting to strip away my rights. Frankly, you cant be pro-american at all without implicitly supporting the horrific crimes they have historically committed whether within their own borders or outside.
One of the most self-damning things about Republicans is how quick they are to start defending allegations of bigotry, racism, sexism, transphobia, treason against America, etc. upon the first mention of conservatism, without noticing that they’re usually the first to bring up those topics. It’s almost like the very concept of conservatism and bigotry against people for their “station” at birth are inseparable, and any attempt to pretend otherwise is just that: pretend.
people can be disinterested in dating each other for any reason they want, it’s not like you have to reach some level of hatefulness before they can say “i don’t care for your politics and i’m not interested.”
“Many of [your friends and family]” vote for legalizing racism, sexism, and now literally the attempted overthrow of the United States of America. If your friends and family vote for that and vote for taking away peoples human rights, they’re terrible people. Maybe they’re nice to you but they’re actively ruining other people’s lives. Your cowardice in continuating to associate with, tolerate, and defend these people and their evil behaviors is childish. “But! but! some of my friends are in the Schutzstaffel, they can’t be all bad!” Grow up.
I agree, the “holier than thou” attitude is really gross. I was hoping this was going to be less of an echo chamber than Reddit but it’s starting to look like it’s worse. Let’s blow this popsicle stand bro I’m out of here
If right-leaning, but not bigoted, there is a lot of space within the Democrats for that, and always has been.
Which is less than ideal, as the GOP remains populated by a mix of extremists & the grossly inattentive, Democrats yanked well to the right of centre, and the left utterly stymied.
But, the point remains that if someone is turning a blind eye to the harm being waged against their fellow Americans in favour of some nebulous lean (which the GOP’s consistently do not bother to address anyhow), then arguably they are far worse than a bigot, who at least one can consider to be haplessly hate-filled, rather than blithely lending support to the hate-filled.
Many of my family and some of my um, not quite friends, are conservative, and all are varying degrees of racist, sexist, or transphobic. Granted, that’s just anecdotal, but have a hard time believing people who vote for bigots aren’t somewhat bigoted themselves if they’re willing to throw vulnerable populations under the bus for 0.5% lower taxes or whatever.
Y’all are the only ones that use the term. The onus is on you to produce a workable definition that can be written down without changing the definition when it’s convenient.
I’m willing to accept the definition Ron desantis’ lawyer used:
During the testimony, Warren’s attorney, Jean-Jacques Cabou asked those within DeSantis’ administration what “woke” meant to them.
The governor’s general counsel, Ryan Newman, said, in general, it means “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” He added that DeSantis doesn’t believe there are systemic injustices in the country, reports Florida Politics.
This is why I don’t fuck guys who “don’t pay attention to politics”.
That means one thing, and it isn’t that they are blissfully unaware of the day to day happenings in their town, county, state, region, country, or planet of residence.
I was responding to the previous comment, not OP. OP was saying conservatives get upset when people won’t sleep with them because they’re conservative. From the text of the comment I responded to, it looks like the person is saying “moderates” just don’t care about anyone but themselves. I’m adding that often the people the actual OP is talking about pretend to be the moderates the previous commenter is discussing.
It depends on why they don’t pay attention to politics. Personally, I kind of have to go ostrich-mode and bury my head in the sand when school gets stressful because I just don’t have the mental bandwidth to deal with both. I’m not going to judge someone too harshly for protecting their mental health from the absolute shitshow that is the American political landscape.
PS: This is not to say that any degree of modern conservatism is okay. Bigots can go fuck themselves and I’d be out punching Nazis and being a medic at protests if it didn’t jeopardize my future so significantly. (Felony convictions make it really hard to get a medical license and I have to pay off my student loans somehow. Besides, I’ll be in a much better position to make a meaningful difference as a physician than as a heavily indebted student or EMT.)
this. you can pay little attention to politics without being a “centrist” who isn’t actually a centrist. news can be depressing as fuck, i’m hella glad i strongly limited my consumption of them, but that doesn’t mean i’m gonna start both-sidesing shit. (with the exception of tankies vs nazis, because those two are in fact the same authoritarian, anti-west, bigoted crap under different flags that love to larp against each other)
In my experience, that’s the case 100% of the time. I’ve never once in my 30+ years heard a liberal say the same thing. It’s always Nazis Republicans trying to deflect and sweep their shitty views under the rug because they think it’s some kind of trump card to get around their awful views and have civilized society allow them back in so they can spread their hate.
I think there’s a difference between someone who doesn’t pay attention to politics and someone who just doesn’t want to argue politics. Someone who doesn’t pay attention to politics at all is too sheltered and doesn’t understand the issues that have been going on and affect a lot of people, so a lot of those people don’t want to date someone who won’t be able to understand something vital to them and that has an effect on their lives. Especially since someone who hasn’t been paying attention likely doesn’t have a lot of the same principles and beliefs.
This is my go-to response whenever anyone wants to start talking politics with me. Mainly because whenever someone wants to talk politics it’s usually not because they’re liberal and I really hate talking with people who just want to prove that their opinion is the right one.
I’ll admit I’ve used it for similar reasons. What I really should be saying is “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to talk about this right now.” Maybe I’ll even be brave and say “I don’t want to talk about this with you.” but it’s rare for me to find a person I don’t want to hear at all from. That usually comes up because they’ve already made their arguments, and I’ve already accepted or rebuttal the points to my own satisfaction. At that point they’ll talk themselves into circles looking for justification for parts of their stance, but unable to articulate it themselves. I’ll listen to anyone’s views at least once, given I’m in the right mindset, but I still wouldn’t date someone I don’t morally agree with. Life partners should have higher standards than conversation partners, and aligning values is a bare minimum for relationships.
I bartend. I was working on Easter, and one of our semi regulars came in with a guy that she was obviously on a drink date with. They’d been at at least one other bar before they came in; they’d had a couple drinks, but weren’t past maybe tipsy.
At one point, she mentioned that the reason the last place they’d been to was slow was likely that it happened to be Easter. At the mention of the word the guy interrupted with,
“I REFUSE TO TALK ABOUT ANY POLITICS OR RELIGION!!”
To me this was a sign that this dude cared very much about religion and politics, but just like how scientologists don’t drop the Xenu shit on you right away, he wanted to wait until any prospective partner was in too deep before revealing how abhorrent his views are.
That regular isn’t my favorite person, but I was proud of her for pretty much ending that date after that.
I’ve never had anyone who said politics and religion aren’t good conversation actually be worth having those conversations with. Everyone else from every other walk of life has no problem having a nuanced conversation about that stuff, it’s only ever WASPs that get all indignant and force everyone else to stop talking.
One of my coworkers had asked something about trans people and bathrooms, and I started to say my piece, but mid sentence the owner comes back like “under no circumstances are you allowed to have this conversation here”.
Oh yeah, so threatening to say that I don’t care who is in what bathroom if they don’t do anything that violates another guests bodily autonomy.
So controversial and brave.
We’ve spent plenty of time talking about the different racist inspired restaurants in the area and the deplorable dog whistle specials they offer, never cared about that offending anyone.
The restaurant in question was the MoonCricket Grille, and they were offering $0.49 Bud lights after the outrage about them in honor of the 49 who died at the Pulse nightclub.
That’s literally a bar rule. Lol. Alcohol makes people talk like they are on the internet in real life. Doesn’t make sense to discuss nuance when you’ve been drinking especially with the touchy subjects.
You should date someone with at least some reasonable overlap of ideals. If you wish to have a family unit, like conservatives certainly do, you need to have common ground and mutual respect or you will end up with yet another single mother raising a potentially negative statistic and father losing his child or bailing.
Oh no, you gotta figure out what sort of situation works for you. It is beneficial to find someone that has some overlapping ideals as yourself, heck most of your friends and you probably already have some overlap you may not have thought about.
Do you not have an overlapping fundamental agreement with your partner about how the world works and what’s moral values are most important?
Like you’re not gonna agree on everything I know, but “are some people inherently better than others, should a justice system focus on punishment or rehabilitation, is education valuable for society, was the earth created by evolution or God, do you want kids(+ a couple questions if “yes”)” are, in my mind, things you need to agree on with the person you intend to share your life with.
So what you’re saying is: relationships require respect? Yeah, that’s one reason a lot of leftism is built upon respect for one another. Conservatism, the best I can understand stand it relies on feeding an outdated lie that there are multiple classes of people, some being better and more deserving than others.
But yeah, you don’t respect your partner you lose your partner, but that does not a conservative or conservative argument make.
When you don’t actively kick out the terrible people in your group, you are making a choice to say “this is something I am willing to tolerate.” So I’ll ask, if you are a conservative and recognize that there are bad actors in your conservative party, are you calling out those bad actors? Or just putting your head down and joining rank and file because your party told you to?
I’m not a member of a political party. I vote for candidates, not parties. If you just vote for a specific party, which ever one that may be, that’s lazy. I don’t care if they’re republican or democrat, I care about what they value.
Also, you can’t really actively kick out member from a party, all you can do is just not vote for them.
It doesn’t matter what the political situation is, you should vote for specific candidates, not just blindly vote for your party, whichever one that may be, and then call anyone who doesn’t fully support your party evil.
You seem like an idealist, which I have some respect for, but you also have to account for reality. And the reality is, we don’t really vote for individual candidates anymore. We vote for one party or the other to have an additional vote. Elected politicians hardly ever vote outside of their party anymore. It’s not ideal but it is reality. If you vote for multiple candidates of different political parties, you’re just making noise.
And that’s a bad systematic problem. But voting based on the candidate should help to slowly fix it. While there is a very clear difference between democrat and republican, there are still differences between candidates of the same party.
If you vote only for the candidates that are closest to the center, then candidates will compete to be closer. But if you just vote for a party, then the candidates have to no incentive to compete.
Also, it’s basically impossible to get rid of supreme court justices, and for good reason. It allows them to rule on cases based only on what they legitimately believe to be the correct decision. The supreme court’s job isn’t to decide right from wrong, it’s to decide legal from illegal. If you don’t like their ruling, the way to change it should be through Congress, not though the courts.
It’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers. For some people, a deal breaker might be something like poor hygiene. For other people, it might be voting for or otherwise supporting politicians who belong to a party that’s actively trying to curtail human rights for anybody who isn’t a white cishet man.
That you or anybody else would find the first example acceptable, but not the second, is ridiculous.
I think you missed the point where I said “it’s not about nuance.”
I’m not claiming my examples don’t have nuances, I’m claiming that many (most) people have things on which they won’t compromise. Standards, if you will. Those standards may have nuance, but they remain uncompromising.
To use your examples, if “not trimming their toenails enough” is a deal breaker for someone, then the nuance of “but they shower ever day” doesn’t matter.
Because it’s not about nuance. It’s about deal breakers.
Idk if you don’t think LGBTQ+ folks deserve equal rights or think that social programs are “too generous” I’m not really interested in how nuanced the rest of you is.
Not saying that’s your beliefs specifically. Just that enough of us are actively harmed by the results of conservative laws and governance that I’m not really interested in knowing the nuanced part of someone who supports those policies.
Of course everyone deserve equal rights, and yes, the social programs could be infinitely better if we put even more resources towards them.
However, with recent internet restrictions, censorship, and identity politics, we’re also actively being harmed by the left.
That doesn’t mean what the people on the right are doing is any good either, I’m just saying it’s not good to lump everyone into these black and white categories. It creates the weird tribalism we see here.
Ah yes, the radical left rolling out programs like 5 eyes. The radical left that makes it legal for corporations to throw cameras everywhere and deploy facial tracking software. The left who deregulated everything till credit card companies are allowed to determine who can access their money and what you’re allowed to spend it on. That radical left sure does love rolling out censorious police state stuff.
the Democrats are a primary party in a military cult empire that indoctrinates children with flag rites and coups every government that dares to call itself socialist. I’m guessing you’re part of that military cult and thus don’t understand how insane it seems from the outside.
There are left elements, that sandy man seems to flirt with Democratic socialism, although not very strongly. It doesn’t seem like he has much power though.
Labor in the UK has thoroughly remade itself after Thatcher with the new labour movement which distanced themselves from their unionist and socialist roots. They now don’t have any particularly leftist policies, although they are less right than the Tories obviously.
In Australia labor did a similar thing after the USA couped our only elected socialist government and replaced the labour leader with a CIA groomed dude.
The right is utterly ascendant in global politics and has been since the rise of neoliberal economics under Reagan and Thatcher. That power is beginning to wane, but don’t confuse being left of “we should hunt the homeless for sport” with being a leftist government. Leftism isn’t when shouting slurs gets you tutted at, it’s Democratic businesses and worker owned collectives, nationalised infrastructure, anti imperialism, open boarders, welfare above the poverty line, universal recognition of human dignity etc.
In Australia the most mainstream leftist party would be the greens who hold at most 1 to 3 seats out of 150 regularly. Similarly in the UK I am given to understand. There are more radical parties but they’re even more marginalised.
Hah “military cult empire” - that’s a great name for the people/parties you’re referring to.
The UK’s labour party did all of that reforming in the mid nineties though, but I see what you’re trying to get at with the coup’s and neoliberal economic movements.
I’d really like to see what you described (the definition you gave for actually being “left”) - in action. Unfortunately, democracies are inherently not very secure (tech may be able to solve some of this), because of other countries and bad actors. Open borders would make this even harder.
Would there even be a government in this situation? Or would this be more akin to a socialist technocracy?
Do you have any examples of any that have done it yet? Without centralizing any sort of power?
Conservatism by definition is thinking “Things are good right now, let’s not change anything” or even worse: “Things were better before, let’s go back to that”.
The issue is “better for who”? Women, queer people, POC, working class people were NOT ok. Implicitly you can see that conservatism is bigoted by (at a minimum) ignoring or misrepresenting the realities of people they don’t care about. It’s just that lately, more and more conservatives are explicit about it and showing their true colors, but the philosophical underpinnings are the same.
It’s bad to under-represnt issues. But it’s also bad to over-represent issues. The right answer is almost always in the middle.
The stuff you see in the news is carefully selected to show what makes people the most upset, that way it gets the most clicks.
In the past, women were subservient to men, black people were slaves, and being queer wasn’t even allowed. Nowadays, things have improved a huge amount. There are still problems, but nothing like the past.
You are clearly not a victim of these issues and the situation is so alien to you that apparently the only way for you to relate to them is via the news. Violence and prejudice are things that happen to “other people”.
Real people are suffering real oppression every day. Some in a small almost invisible way and others live in permanent fear of violence because of who they are.
That things were worse in the past is no reason to stop progress. And things did get better because people fought for them, often to death.
I hope you are arguing in good faith and have the moral strength to accept you may be blind to some realities and reconsider your beliefs.
Not really: the meme is mocking people who say they can’t find dates because they are conservative, like these ones (opinion piece but cites sources). So it’s just aimed at people who already “put themselves in boxes”. If they didn’t the whole meme falls apart, since it’s based on a “discrimination” and you have to be aware of what about you is being “discriminated” to complain about it.
Add comment