Hi, all.
As should be news to no one, polarization and animosity between conservatives and liberals is at one of its all-time highs in America right now. There’s even talk of a second civil war looming. Obviously, there are strong passions and convictions on both sides, and people on both sides have claimed that the other is a grave threat to the integrity of the nation itself. I’m familiar with the views and concerns of my own side: we view Donald Trump’s (and his allies’ and supporters’) statements and actions as being an attack on the democratic process that defines our nation, and are worried that the strategies and tactics he and they are employing will make future elections farcical, paving the way for an authoritarian state (a dictatorship). I am less familiar with why conservatives feel Democrats and liberals are a threat to the nation and its integrity in similar fashion. My best guess is that conservatives buy Trump’s assertions that the 2020 presidential election was rigged, and thus might have similar fears as liberals do, but I also get the sense conservatives have deeper, older concerns than this, and that Trump was/is viewed as a solution to them.
Can you please try to articulate here what those fears are? And, to any liberals reading this, please refrain from answering in conservatives’ stead. I’m interested in their opinions, not your opinions of their opinions.
I’d like to know too. To me, liberals want clean air, safe food, livable wages and working conditions. They want to marry who they love, ensure education for all and make healthcare affordable and available. They sound like monsters!
I’m not a conservative, but I think I can fairly articulate their views. Actual conservatives can correct me where they see fit.
As many of them are ostensibly concerned with law and order, the Constitution is the bedrock of American law and order. Liberal attacks on the second amendment with gun control laws and on the first amendment, by characterizing hate speech and trying to get social media companies to police it, undermine the representation the Constitution affords every American citizen. Liberals seem willing to undermine the constitutional foundation of the country in order to “push an agenda”. That’s why Biden is often portrayed as an unlawful government executive that gratuitously overreaches the limits of his office. Similarly, being worried about the strategies and tactics that Trump and other Republican politicians use is fine, but indicting them four times, and throwing people in jail for “inciting violence” is considered much too far for the conservative. Using the law in that way weaponizes it against people earnestly defending their beliefs, and is viewed as a slippery slope into authoritarianism.
Economic policy is another huge area of concern for the conservative. Dedicated to American free enterprise, which is axiomatically the optimal way to produce and distribute resources unless proven otherwise, economic policies that interfere with the invisible hand actively harm the population. So, for example, sure, a wealth tax would redistribute wealth and maybe provide free school lunches for kids. But what is the opportunity cost? More sophisticated conservative economic analysis (like that from AEI, Cato, the Heritage Foundation, or similar) often focus on the potential of lost benefits of leftist economic policy. Wealth redistribution, for the conservative, is like cutting your foot off to run faster due too lost weight. Leftist economic policy undermines the economic security of the nation.
And social policy is a huge concern, too. The whole crisis of masculinity is a example, where they believe young boys and men are taught to hate who they intrinsically are. Conversely, transgender people invert and poison the “natural order”. Such social policies undermine the United States in multiple ways, but the biggest is cultivating “weakness”. Boys and men who are taught that masculinity is toxic won’t be there to enact the necessary violence against aggressors in their personal lives, let alone be there for the nation when the time for war comes. They won’t have the ability to overcome challenges, which all men face. Instead, they’ll lean into their feelings and sulk in depression because the masculinity required, they’ll be taught, can hurt them and those around them. That is, for the conservative, social policy is like caring for others at the expense of the self; it’s collectivism. And by not encouraging and cultivating the uniquely American individualistic masculinity that’s made us a super power in the few centuries we’ve been a country, it puts the global American hegemony at risk, which could be catastrophic for the world.
There’s more. But those are probably the most salient issues that I can think of off the top of my head.
I always thought conservative were scared: they’re scared that their lifestyle is in danger, because they think that the other side will do like them. This means they are scared that Muslim will force them to do Ramadan or excision. They’re scared that lgbt will force them into lgbt. They’re scared that they will be poor if the current poor aren’t anymore. They’re scared that they will have to work if their children aren’t working enough.
Fear is what drives them IMO. And violence and coercion is the only solution they know, which fuel their fear, because they fear the other side is as bad as they are.
Media will do whatever they can to fuel these fears too. Honestly, I would execute or exile the people leading the far right media. They are traitors who manipulate and lie on a large scale, they are the largest threat to western countries today.
Fundamentally for me it’s that liberals and socialism in general sees the state as the answer to a lot of problems. Healthcare should be handled by the state (I kind of agree with that one), care of the disabled should be handled by the state, personal defense and protection should be handled by the state (police), education should come from the state (public education), etc. And if you’re in favor of the current state then you probably want it in charge of so much of society.
But imagine a state that you don’t want running the country. If you’re a liberal, think of Trump and the Federalists new 2025 game plan. Do you want that state to have so much power?
So in my mind power consolidates and states don’t let go of it. But the goodness and badness of states come and go. In my personal history a lot of my family was killed by the state, so I inherently don’t trust it that much and don’t want it to be large and in charge.
I have no problem with the hopes and aspirations of liberals as I share them. I just feel that a big beefy state apparatus is one evil ruler away from crushing the citizenry.
Thank you for the response!
I’ve thought about this–this oft-commented-upon notion that conservatives want small federal government and more power in the hands of the states and/or people–but I continually find it difficult to square this with what conservatives are voting for today. Trump has been very clear about wanting to consolidate power in his own hands, in a manner consistent with authoritarian dictators, and conservatives don’t seem to have a problem with it. Similarly, while the conservative cant about abortion for decades has been that they want it in state control rather than federal, now that SCOTUS has put in state control, conservatives are talking about a federal ban. So, I don’t really buy this notion that conservatives favor local/state control over federal; I increasingly think that’s a facade for “we don’t like people different from us enforcing their views on us,” but it covers, “we have specific ways we think people should live and we want to enforce those views on other people.” The problem I have with this is that liberal policies don’t actually enforce their ways of life on conservatives, with the significant exception that said policies do push to have liberal ways of life promoted in public education, which conservatives obviously have a problem with. However, liberals aren’t trying to force anyone to get abortions, simply let people who want them have them. Similarly, no one’s trying to force people to be gay or trans; simply accept people who are gay as human beings. I honestly don’t know what conservatives think the “gay agenda” is. Can you explain this?
I understand that the allure of an authoritarian government is one that holds to your own policies and tramples any opposition to them–I can understand the appeal of that to anyone, conservative or liberal. But I would think most people are able to wrap their minds around the idea of civil disagreement and the importance of people being able to debate things and vote on them as a group (democracy). I do think the media has overblown the extent to which conservatives think the following, but January 6th really did send the message that Trump supporters don’t accept what the rest of us call democracy, and that’s a serious problem. Currently, polls indicate most conservatives still support Trump, who is still claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him. Why should liberals regard conservatives as reasonable, rational human beings under these circumstances? Why should I respect the opinions of a person who is willing to vote for a transparent psychopath and liar, just because he parrots what the policies they like to hear? Clearly, liberals vote for politicians who have flaws and simply parrot their views, but Trump is beyond the pale, is he not?
In regards to your first point, I absolutely agree that it’s bullshit for a “small government conservative”, which I often consider myself, to be hypocritical as hell and use the state to enforce their viewpoint on others. In a larger sense, it’s another reason I simply don’t trust the state that much. Because in the final analysis I think most people don’t actually want democracy and they’re more than happy to smash the opposition if they think it’s for the greater good. If you think guns are a net negative then ignoring the second amendment is just a necassary broken egg in the omlette of a safer society. If you think that trans people are a net negative then restricting access to books and medical care is likewise a net-positive because of the greater good. In both of those cases it’s people with an agenda using the state’s ability to force people.
The eyerolling part for me about the woke left is that there is a sea of injustices in this world that they don’t give a shit about at all, but they pick a few as the topics-du-jour and use that for virtue signaling. Like I haven’t met a single woke-left person who genuinely gives a shit about ~40 veterans a day committing suicide. Or janiweed militia still actively raping and murdering in south sudan. I mean if you ask them, sure, they care. But do they actually make it a priority like they do anything else? Do they post about it on reddit like they do JK Rowling’s latest shit? Do they organize or write letters about it? Hell no. And for me, I like to think that I’m aware of the fact that I’m not truly in touch with all the world’s issues and therefore I shouldn’t sit around lecture other people about what they should care about and what they shouldn’t. I’m no moral exemplar, I’m just some guy trying to do the right thing and I’m not holding you accountable for paying attention to all the things that I am because holy-shit maybe, just maybe, you are aware of things that I’m not? But the woke-left feels that it has The List of Injustices and if you do not prioritize those you are an absolute piece of shit who is mentally and morally flawed, never bothering to realize that there are many other Lists of Injustices that they conveniently ignore.
And I think the left does attempt to make others follow their path. Think of how up in arms the left (generally) gets about the “under god” line in the pledge, or the pledge in general. Sure you can sit down through it, you can just not say under god, but the fact that it’s there drives people absolutely nuts. Flip it around to pronouns in email signatures and you have something similar whereby you can simply ignore it, but it’s a cultural value and norm that’s being foisted upon you. No one’s going to arrest you for sitting down during the pledge or using the wrong pronouns, but it will potentially hurt you socially and job-wise.
Regarding Trump, yes, he is a terrible person who I wouldn’t want to be my neighbor let alone president. I never voted for him and never would in the future. The best way I see the republican party now is sort of like the democrats from 1850->1930. During that 80 year time frame they went from being the party of white southern slave owners to FDR. It was a radical shift and the republican party is going through a transformation of the same. Democrats too: it used to be a party of working class people but that shifted and now it’s more the educated-coastals who love nothing more than nasal gazing at “people who hold onto their bibles and guns” (obama) or “deplorables” (h. clinton). But I’m here on r/conservative (or whatever it is on lemmy), never would I be on r/republican because that party is a mid-transition mess. I’m happy with adjusting my values because of my own experience and learning, but I’m not going to follow a party around wherever it may lead me.
I really don’t find anyone left or right that wants to truly discuss anything. My buddy is in a group called better angels (https://www.thebetterangelssociety.org) where they specifically have tough conversations across the political spectrum and I love that. But liberals are kidding themselves if they see themselves as the open minded thoughtful types and everyone else is just some grunting rube who’s alternating between a klan hood and a maga hat.
I’m in Nevada, and my congressman is a Steven Horsford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Horsford). He had an 11 year affair with a subordinate and funneled campaign money to her (federal crime). He was roundly re-elected I’m assuming because however objectionable his personal (and criminal) behavior is, at least he’s not a republican! I bring that up because the mechanism by which people will elect a bad person because he’s at least going to vote the way we want is common across all parties. Is Trump worse? Sure, definitely, no doubt. But for real: imagine a democrat who would break the law to truly alter climate change and provide for universal health care, do you think a lot of liberals would be aghast at the abuse of power? Or do you think, similar to Horsford, that people will walk through hip-deep shit if it means getting the country that they want. They’ll do it by hook or by crook.
So to your question of “Why should liberals regard conservatives as reasonable, rational human beings under these circumstances? Why should I respect the opinions of a person who is willing to vote for a transparent psychopath and liar, just because he parrots what the policies they like to hear?” my answer would be because they’re no better. Trump’s worse, sure, but there is zero evidence to suggest that liberals would somehow act differently if they had a chance to put their own Trump in office. So instead I would take the very uncomfortable position that none of us are nearly as smart and on solid footing as we’d like to think we are.
The problem I have with this is that liberal policies don’t actually enforce their ways of life on conservatives
Gun control, higher taxes, and more regulations are all things I see liberals pretty universally pushing for. Those are all enforced onto people whether they like it or not.
But I would think most people are able to wrap their minds around the idea of civil disagreement and the importance of people being able to debate things and vote on them as a group (democracy)
I’m aware this is going to sound pedantic, but really the last “vore on them as a group” is really the only part of that absolutely required for democracy. The reason I bring it up is because most people, regardless of political views, tend to believe some set of values should be protected beyond democratic reach. Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase “democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner”? The idea being that not all results achieved democratically are desirable or acceptable outcomes to all parties involved. For a more real world example (as neither wolves nor lambs participate in a democratic society or hang out together), would you consider a vote that codified race-based slavery to be an acceptable result of democracy?
I bring this up because it’s entirely feasible to have civil discussion and debate over things, even if one or both parties is still going to put their foot down and say they wouldn’t accept a democratic vote to the contrary.
Why should I respect the opinions of a person who is willing to vote for a transparent psychopath and liar, just because he parrots what the policies they like to hear? Clearly, liberals vote for politicians who have flaws and simply parrot their views, but Trump is beyond the pale, is he not?
That’s just politics? I’m not voting based on who I think is the chillest bro I’d love to invite for dinner. The specific person matters very little to me as a whole, given our current political system. Rather, I care what policy they will enact (or block) while in office, how the government is leaning in terms of party makeup, and general election strategy.
Gun control, higher taxes, and more regulations are all things I see liberals pretty universally pushing for. Those are all enforced onto people whether they like it or not.
Okay, I’ll concede gun control is an issue on which liberals are trying to enforce their views on others. However, the tax increases liberals push for are heavily weighted towards corporations and the super-rich; working and middle class people are largely unaffected by them. Furthermore, I don’t consider the tax rate a “way of life;” that’s not what I was referring to in my comment. Similarly, the regulations liberals push for are things like “you can’t dump plastic in the ocean” and “you have to use this slightly more expensive part in your device, because studies have conclusively shown it’s much better for the environment,” and I don’t see those as “ways of life” either. The classic divide about government regulations is that liberals want more of them and conservatives want less, but the regulations themselves are almost always very specific, policy-relevant things that aren’t the same as one sector of society forcing their cultural values on another. The tug of war over regulations is about the freedoms of the private sector vs. the interests of the public. We all agree there should be a balance, just like we all agree taxes are necessary; the only debate is about what that balance should be.
would you consider a vote that codified race-based slavery to be an acceptable result of democracy?
Obviously not one I’d accept, nor I think the population voted on to be slaves, but sure, it could be a product of a democratic process. I’m not sure what your point is here, so maybe I do regard it as a bit pedantic? The original quote of mine you referenced was in the context of me talking about the allure of authoritarianism. I said that, because in my view, conservatives these days are displaying a great deal of approval of/desire for an authoritarian response to democratic processes that don’t go their way. Trump is the most obvious example, but you could look at the Republican reliance of gerrymandering to maintain their own power in the face of popular votes that don’t go their way as another. What is so serious about democrats winning that these sorts of extreme strategies are necessary? I suppose I can see how abortion might justify it to some people, as it’s about saving lives in their view, but “the gay agenda?” “Wokeness?” The “rigged” 2020 election theory that has not a shred of evidence in support of it? If conservatives are willing to give up on democracy over those issues, I just don’t think they’re even really trying anymore.
That’s just politics? I’m not voting based on who I think is the chillest bro I’d love to invite for dinner. The specific person matters very little to me as a whole, given our current political system. Rather, I care what policy they will enact (or block) while in office, how the government is leaning in terms of party makeup, and general election strategy.
While I understand your point, I reject your logic on the grounds that Trump is demonstrably not like your garden variety politician. He is mentally disordered in a very extreme and dangerous way, and it’s frankly irresponsible to put him in power over others. And it is this single fact, which conservatives seem to dispute, that makes me think they’ve lost their minds, because this is an extremely important and not particularly difficult distinction to see. I see voting for a psychopath for president as a moral evil, which should be something we all agree on. The fact that it is apparently not is very concerning to me.
However, the tax increases liberals push for are heavily weighted towards corporations and the super-rich; working and middle class people are largely unaffected by them.
The rich are still people, and I believe they share the same rights as everyone else. They aren’t just some free money glitch to bankroll a bunch of shitty government programs. I don’t care how much you make, you’re equally entitled to that money as everyone else and shouldn’t be punished for success.
The classic divide about government regulations is that liberals want more of them and conservatives want less, but the regulations themselves are almost always very specific, policy-relevant things that aren’t the same as one sector of society forcing their cultural values on another
How so? You can’t just claim that everything you support doing is specific and policy-relevant while everything you don’t isn’t. Why aren’t environmental regulations you forcing your environmentalist values onto others? Why aren’t the massive regulations around employment forcing your values onto others? Because clearly not everyone shares the same values, else there’d be no percieved need for government involvement in the first place.
The tug of war over regulations is about the freedoms of the private sector vs. the interests of the public. We all agree there should be a balance, just like we all agree taxes are necessary; the only debate is about what that balance should be.
Which is, fundamentally, a matter of forcing values onto everyone who has a different stance on this topic.
I’m not sure what your point is here, so maybe I do regard it as a bit pedantic?
My point is that there’s nothing wrong with authoritarianism when it generates the right results, and that I see no reason to prioritize democracy when it repeatedly fails to achieve anything desirable. Why should I place democracy, which is fundamentally a value-neutral system, over actually ever achieving anything?
He is mentally disordered in a very extreme and dangerous way, and it’s frankly irresponsible to put him in power over others
Given 4 years of him as president, surely you can point to examples beyond just “he made policy decisions I don’t like”, no? If you want to argue that something is evil, you’re going to actually have to point out how it is evil, because I don’t accept it as a deontological wrong. I consider politics to be a game of results. I’m perfectly fine with whatever actually ends up generating desirable results, regardless of whether someone is going to cry eViL at the end.
deleted by creator
I used to be a liberal too.
Right up until the evergreen college strangeness. I didn’t understand why those students were acting the way they were. So I started looking into it.
It’s a lot of very dense reading to actually understand how liberals and their values have changed. A lot of Derrida, Foucault, Marx, etc has crept into the liberal idea of society.
Conservatives value freedom and the individual. Liberals have begun to go backwards, treating people as part of social groups. So instead of you just being you, and having the ability to succeed or fail on your own merits (the things that we all used to agree on), have become twisted.
This is where the left really lost someone like me. I was having a conversation about people and individualism with a friend of mine and she said “have you ever heard of intersectionality?” Well, yes of course. But you intersect everyone enough and you’re just left with a perfectly unique human. Skin color, religion, education, preferences, you add them all up and no one is the same as anyone else.
So that’s a bit of the social ways that liberals are moving us away from a capitalist democracy. I’d suggest reading Stephen hicks “understanding postmodernism” to kind of start to see why conservatives don’t like the social direction liberals want to take the west.
And as far as policy, a lot of liberal solutions to problems is just to throw money at shit. And bloating government to make up more programs to throw money at.
The government is incompetent, and liberals want to keep giving government more control over peoples lives. But the government will never make better decisions for your life than you will.
That’s basically what taxes are. You find the government with your tax dollars, and they decided how to spend it. But that money is always going to be better spent by you directly. You’ll always make better financial decisions for yourself and your family than the government ever will.
And since the government isn’t an actual expert in any field, and are completely incompetent, they will actually make resoundingly terrible decisions with your money.
If you want to help people, give money yourself through charities of your choice, you don’t need to hand it to the government and hope they spend it in a way you would support. If you had that 30% in your pocket, you could spend it exactly how you feel is best to help people.
Obviously this is very high-level and not detailed, but a little overview, broad strokes.
The feeling of inevitable violence is because the leftists have decided that anyone who isn’t a leftist is a bigoted nazi. I mean, those are pretty obviously fighting words.
If you call someone a nazi, that’s extremely insulting and people will defend themselves. It’s dehumanizing. There are very few nazis or white supremacists in the world. But the left thinks there are 80 million of them in just the US alone
This is a lot more helpful than your other comment ITT, which I’m not going to bother responding to.
Right up until the evergreen college strangeness.
I remember that and I agree their behavior was balls-to-the-wall crazy and totally unjustified. Thing is, most liberals who saw that agreed the students were out of line. Just like most conservatives agree the 1/6 crowd were out-of-line. Don’t judge an entire half of the political spectrum by their extremists.
Conservatives value freedom and the individual. Liberals have begun to go backwards, treating people as part of social groups.
Liberals value freedom too, don’t be daft. No group would admit that they don’t value freedom, and virtually all do in some sense. Conservatives grip that liberals are encroaching on people’s religious freedoms, while liberals gripe that conservatives stand in the way of freedoms for gay people, women, racial minorities, etc.
As for individualism vs. collectivism, it’s not as simple as individualism=good, collectivism=bad. In any functional society, there is always a balance between the freedoms of the individual and and the needs of the group. Supporting one while neglecting the other always leads to societal problems. It’s not “backwards” to treat people as parts of social groups—we all are a part of social groups, even as we are distinct individuals as well.
This is where the left really lost someone like me. I was having a conversation about people and individualism with a friend of mine and she said “have you ever heard of intersectionality?” Well, yes of course. But you intersect everyone enough and you’re just left with a perfectly unique human. Skin color, religion, education, preferences, you add them all up and no one is the same as anyone else.
I take issue with intersectionality too, but not for the reason you’ve given here. I think here you’re taking the idea to an extreme it was never meant to be taken to and thus judging it to be absurd when you’re the one who’s taken it to that absurd end. I don’t have a problem with intersectionality as a concept—it’s just the idea that people can be given a set of social “coordinates” in society by mapping where they fall on various bipolar axes. There’s nothing wrong with that; it’s a valid way of looking at subsections of society. The problem I have with it is that most people who talk about intersectionality and use it in political arguments don’t use it as a method of analysis but as a method of painting a literal crosshairs on certain demographics to make them the enemy.
So that’s a bit of the social ways that liberals are moving us away from a capitalist democracy.
I think I can comfortably speak for most moderate liberals when I say that we don’t want a communist state, wherein the government owns everything and there’s only one political party to vote for. However, that doesn’t mean that capitalism has no flaws that it can’t correct itself. I favor capitalism, regulated by some socialist policies—which, again, I think I can safely say is what most moderate liberals want. Lemmy apparently is a haven for far leftist commies though. Never seen so many of them in one “place,” to be honest.
And as far as policy, a lot of liberal solutions to problems is just to throw money at shit. And bloating government to make up more programs to throw money at.
I work in community mental health and service a lot of people on welfare, disability, etc. Having seen how the system works up close, I can certainly agree that there is a lot of wasteful spending and the system overall is very inefficient. However, private charitable organizations have simply failed to help the populations I work with, and in my personal experience, that’s partially because a lot of them genuinely don’t want to. Churches are often only interested in helping if there’s a chance to gain a new convert, and lots of local organizations that focus on their surrounding community only have real interest in helping a specific subgroup within that community, not the community as a whole. So, I don’t think the private sector has demonstrated it has the willingness to help everyone, so much as specific groups.
The government is incompetent, and liberals want to keep giving government more control over peoples lives. But the government will never make better decisions for your life than you will.
Yes, but that’s not what your tax dollars are actually for. The idea of government charity (welfare) using your tax dollars is that it will at least attempt to take care of people neither you nor the private organizations you favor have any real interest in helping. It’s there for the people who are the most in need, with the fewest resources, options, and support. It’s in your interest that these people get help, because their poverty and suffering typically leads to crime and other social problems that will affect you down the line in one way or another. I have no real interest in helping criminals, but I acknowledge it’s in my interest that criminals do get help in prison, because reformed ex-convicts are less likely to return to a life of crime than unreformed ex-convicts.
The feeling of inevitable violence is because the leftists have decided that anyone who isn’t a leftist is a bigoted nazi. I mean, those are pretty obviously fighting words.
I understand why you say that, but I don’t think you’re looking at it from the other side as well. Conservatives regularly label anyone who doesn’t agree with them as “woke,” “Marxist,” and allege they “want to destroy the country” too, and yet the vast majority of political violence comes from the Right, not the Left. So, I don’t think that really accounts for the violence itself. Sure, those who get violent might cite extremist rhetoric from the opposite side of the political aisle, but every study that really digs deep into these people and their motivations finds they either have serious mental health issues or already adhere to a violent extremist ideology themselves to begin with.
Thanks for your input, I really do appreciate it. If you want to continue discussing these issues, I’m game, just keep your comments of this caliber, please.
Forget Trump for the purpose of this question, because he’s divisive, and many conservatives don’t fully support him.
The general answer to your question is that Progressivism is designed to destroy the USA by gradually eroding traditional values, and then progressively moving on to erode more. That’s the entire point of Progressivism.
I’ll spare you the book-length answer that unpacks that idea into a long list of examples.
The general answer to your question is that Progressivism is designed to destroy the USA by gradually eroding traditional values, and then progressively moving on to erode more. That’s the entire point of Progressivism.
When this country was founded, many people held the values that Black people should be slaves and women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Assuming you don’t hold those values, doesn’t that go against the idea that all traditional values are good and shouldn’t be changed? Furthermore, the Founding Fathers intentionally created ways for laws and even the constitution to be changed, so isn’t it fair to say they intended for progressivism to have an avenue to change things? Your answer seems overly generalized. I asked my question operating on the assumption that there were specific fears conservatives have today about how liberals are trying to do things they feel will destroy the country. Do you think you could give me those specifics?
I don’t think the founding fathers would support changing the country to a communist shithole.
That’s not why they allowed amendments
My answer was generalized because I do not care to get into the specifics. I’m sorry, I know that seems dismissive. But I wasn’t kidding when I said “book-length”. You’re proposing an extremely long and detailed discussion. Maybe someone else will bite, but it won’t be me. Not today. I stand behind my generalization fwiw, and I’ll leave it at that.
Fair enough. Thanks for responding at least. (BTW, it wasn’t me who downvoted your comment.)
Downvotes don’t federate, so I don’t see it. At least they don’t yet. But even if they did, I’m used to downvotes. My reputation here on kbin is -2178, which is over 800 closer to 0 than it used to be. Whee! That’s just for expressing Christian conservative perspectives. Not exactly popular in the Fediverse, or at least not on kbin.
Anyway, thank you for understanding.
St. Basil and St. Isaac expressed Christian perspectives. This is just regurgitated right-wing talking points.
No problem. I joined Lemmy.world when Reddit pulled 3rd party apps and I’ve noticed that this place seems a haven for far-left types, communists/anarchists, etc. I’m a liberal, but a lot more moderate than those types, so I get a fair bit of digital hate for disagreeing as well. Such is the nature of upvote/downvote systems.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Dude, don’t be a dick.
I mean, he could have used lighter words but the contents of the reply couldn’t have really changed. Conservatives at this point, maga conservatives expecially, are well beyond reason. I can’t see how can they be recovered from the pit of hate and despair they dug themselves in since they are the ones defending their “right” to be left in the ignorance hole they so much love and enjoy.
Personally I am not for eugenetic politics but, should I ever have a daughter to take care of, one of the lessons I’ll make sure to pass her will be to avoid as much as possible to mingle with someone having any right-leaning believes. They need to stop reproducing
At least us right leaning people know what a woman is without needing a biology degree…
Oh yeah?
Then tell me and school me, what is a woman?
I’m all ears
An adult human female
And what is a female?
The sex that produces ova or bears young
Shouldn’t you have learned these definitions already?
deleted by creator
Still waiting for your definition of woman. To be such a clear concept to you you are taking your sweet time providing me with a simple description of a woman.
Are you scared to write one down? Well, I get it, must be hard realizing life is much more complex than what your cult leaders are selling you…
Though luck, I hope to find a more prepared right-winger for my next discussion
Taking 4 days so far to come up with that definition.
“Im a right wing fascist because of my gender ideology”
I just don’t bother with trolls that fail to realize how stupid they look to the rest of the world. A woman is an adult FEMALE person. It’s quite simple really. Also, not everyone thinks lemmy is the most important thing in the world, some of us only login once or twice a week. You should go touch grass or find a hobby. You are way too obsessed for your own good.
I dont bother with trolls
Is a troll
alrighty then
I know. I’m a troll for stating all the obvious facts instead of just agreeing with the little talking heads. You should go get vaxed some more.
A woman is an adult FEMALE person.
So you think this person is a woman?
They don’t look like a woman to me. You can’t honestly tell me that a straight man would find this person sexually attractive. Seems to me that it is the conservatives that are confused.
Nah, I deal with the idiots too much to have patience anymore. Find someone else to cry to.
