I’m a conservative. I don’t mind the liberal stuff here. It’s good to learn the other side, but I don’t want a liberal echo chamber. I’d like to be more politically balanced in the fediverse. Is there any way I can do that?
Just a reminder that it isn’t a left vs right conversation. It’s working class vs ruling class.
You aren’t bitter at leftists, you’re bitter at the ideas that media companies use to keep you angry at leftists instead of oligarchs.
If you have to work, you’re working class.
If you actually do hate certain types of people, then you need to work on yourself.
If you don’t believe certain people need health care, then you need to work on yourself.
If you believe ultra wealthy (people making over $10mil in income annually) deserve more tax cuts, then you need to work on yourself.
If you don’t believe that minimum wage should have parity with inflation, then you need to work on yourself.
Have some class solidarity.
EDIT: To all those downvotes… Ask yourself why you are downvoting me. (Now with 100% more sources)
Do you actually hate certain people? Really? But you’re downvoting me? Work on yourself.
Do you actually believe you don’t deserve health care? That others don’t deserve health care? Seriously? Work on yourself.
Are you super wealthy (low percentage chance)? I’m saying uncomfortable things to you. But you can easily afford those taxes so maybe work on yourself.
Do you believe people working for minimum wage shouldn’t be able to afford an apartment by themselves anywhere in the USA? Work on yourself.
deleted by creator
Well said. I’m saving this.
I’m confused. You are here and engaging, but you think it is an echo chamber? Echo chambers aren’t really conducive to outside opinions. I’m here and definitely not a liberal, I’m a humanitarian.
As long as you don’t see any person to the left of you as a Liberal, you’ll find a decently diverse pool here!
Stick around, smell the flowers.
I don’t want to be in this echo chamber, I want to me in my echo chamber
unfortunately for OP reality has a left-leaning bias.
If you want to see where the conservatives moved to, go to scored.co. (formerly thedonald.win). The worst thing about them isn’t limited to the unhinged garbage they spew, but that they are just such bores.
It’s so awful in every way imaginable that it makes me appreciate what we have here even more.
My politics lean very far to the left, but I don’t want to be an echo chamber and it saddens me to see how little room for political dialogue there is on lemmy. The echo chamber is a big problem with reddit, and is even worse on Lemmy.
Exploding-heads is the only instance I’m aware of with a more right leaning/conservative base. It is more troll content than any real discussion of politics though.
“It is more troll content than any real discussion of politics though.”
Yeah that’s how the republicans discuss politic
Removed by mod
I mean Im not conservative, but I hope you see the irony in the complete lack of empathy in your message
Removed by mod
I think kbin is less leftist then Lemmy and you get the same content. I moderate https://kbin.social/m/Catholic and although it is relatively quiet, we do not get a lot of harassment from the left.
Being a conservative must be a discombobulating experience in the technological age. The conservative is attempting to prevent the progression of society and conserve what we currently have or even revert to a bygone era.
OP arrives at a brand new platform, a piece of technology that didn’t exist a short while ago and requests a space to assemble people who don’t like change.
Do you think that progress is a straight line?
I think political communities in general tend to get quite heated if a debate gets going and because it’s unlikely people are going to change their mind it gets personal.
In some ways the left wing ones are worse for this - I have been accused in my time of being too left wing and too right wing, there’s a lot of different splinter groups and factions.
Tbh I just avoid politics on Reddit, Lemmy and similar, unless it’s just to share or comment on a news story maybe. I don’t think it’s the right format for reasonable conversation
Isn’t that just a fancy way of saying “I want more lies, ignorance and hate sprinkled in”?
“More politically balanced” lol
deleted by creator
It’s sad that you’re getting down voted for this, because you’re absolutely right. These lemmy communities are already turning out to be a left-leaning echo chamber, this thread is a perfect example. Any opinion that differs from the left is blocked or downvoted or argued against endlessly.
OP asks a completely reasonable question in good faith, and hundreds of people come to attack him for thinking differently than they do.
People straight up mock him for no reason. The left loves to paint the right as being hateful, but I’m only seeing the left being hateful on here.
So anyone who doesn’t subscribe to everything you believe in or agree with are liars, ignorant, and hateful? Discussions and debate can be healthy.
I mean there’s no reason in debating a liar, it’s lose lose.
Ever been on a conservative subreddit? No matter how open minded you are, you can’t overlook how they don’t even care to spread misinformation.
Yes, and I find them indistinguishable from liberal subreddits. The echo chambers are pretty easy to find…
Yeah. I have. Echo chambers. Hated them.
But the OP seems to be open-minded based on this post. If he is (or at least tries to be), then I don’t see a reason why we should just criticize his politics without just cause. If he eventually proves to be a troll or breaks rules then maybe the admins can ban him.
It’s hard to generalize. There are assholes from all political spectrums, even though there may be more in others.
Edit: if I’m not mistaken, I think it was Voat I checked out last? I really can’t remember but this isn’t the first time I tried leaving reddit. This is the most successful attempt yet, though. I also inadvertently joined a Q group/channel on Telegram. Lmao.
The exact same thing can be said for liberal communities. It becomes a hivemind where dissenting opinions are not allowed.
Take the Hunter Biden laptop story for instance. So many websites and communities outright banned it from being discussed or posted because they didn’t like the optics of it. Facebook banned it, the top subs on reddit banned it.
Only very recently has CNN decided to treat it as news, after lying about it constantly on air for months saying it was fake. That’s censorship of information. The left regularly spread misinformation like “the laptop story is a Russian hoax”.
Both sides do this.
Why make it a right vs left thing at all. Can’t we just discuss things going on as they are without pigeonholing certain opinions as “right” and “left?”
I don’t think x y z thing is true because I’m “on the left.” I think it’s true because it’s my best understanding of reality, and that understanding of reality is generally described as “left.” If you falsify my arguments, point flaws in my understanding, or present me with a set of premises that corroborates reality better, I’ll align myself with that in a heartbeat. When you see something you disagree with, don’t just think “oh that’s leftism I don’t agree with that,” instead, try to figure out what you think the flaw is with it, and then offer that up in good faith. Worst case scenario, someone learns something.
I can appreciate opposing views, including conservative ones, if they are grounded in reason. In fact I welcome them … they sharpen my own arguments and make me question my beliefs which is seldom a bad thing.
What I cannot accept is any argument based on a supernatural entity. If you want to make laws because your holy book tells you to then I’ll do everything in my power to block you. You have the absolute right to follow your own beliefs but you have no right to force those beliefs on others.
You have a point there. I agree with a lot of views from the left even though I’m on the right.
First off, thank you :)
Second off, I am having a hard time understanding what the statement “I agree with a lot of views from the left even though I’m on the right” means. What do you consider “views from the left” that you agree with, and what does it mean to you to say you’re “on the right?”
I know people here will try to debate me on every issue here and I know I won’t have time for that. Go ahead and ask whatever questions you want, but I can’t promise I’ll answer everything. .
I don’t have a perfect knowledge of exactly what’s on the left and right so please forgive me if I put something in the wrong category.
I understand that left vs right ideally shouldn’t exist. The same goes for political parties. They do exist so here’s some of my views from both sides.
Right. I don’t agree with critical race theory. Skin color should be treated like hair color or eye color. It’s just a way to describe someone.
Government should strictly obey the constitution.
Billionaires should exist if they do businesses ethically.
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the fetus.
I find myself agreeing more with conservatives when voting.
The electoral college is a good thing because it lets small towns have a voice.
Left. Walkable cities are a more efficient use of space.
Climate change is real and humans are continuing. It’s not going to destroy the world in 5 years like some people are saying. It’s mostly going to affect poor costal countries and islands many years in the future.
Corporations should be held accountable for their actions.
Puerto Rico and other US territories should be a states or their own country.
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the mother.
Skin color should be treated like hair color or eye color. It’s just a way to describe someone.
Is there a history of descriminating and enslaving people based on their hair or eye color? You don’t think that that history has any effect on society?
I find myself agreeing more with conservatives when voting.
Like what? Because you’re likely just agreeing with what they say, because they’re lying, and you’re believing them. Not because of any inherent truth to what they say. It’s one thing to agree with someone on something they say. But do you agree with what they DO? Give an example of a price of legislation that the Republicans have pushed that the Democrats opposed that you agree with
And why do you think the Democrats don’t think the government should follow the Constitution. Which party is enacting laws explicitly bypassing constituonal rights by allowing citizens to sue privately, rather than enforcing it themselves, explicitly to get around constitutional issues. Which party is banning books, firing teachers for protected speech, etc
All of your right leaning opinions listed are not opinions at all - they are Republican talking points, written and promoted by Republicans whose life experience (abortion for example) often flies in the face of these statements.
How you think they fit with the rest of your statements is beyond me. Do you just drool and nod at Fox News?
With all due respect, you’re very condescending and snobby. You act like you know his beliefs better than he does, that superiority complex looks ugly on you.
You think insulting people for having certain views is going to be helpful in this dialogue? You think mocking someone who’s having a conversation with you in good faith is productive?
Grow up, quit being so smug and childish.
I don’t watch fox news.
Yet you somehow know all of their talking points and made up fantasy situations. So if you’re not getting your news from fox, whoever you are getting it from is getting it from fox, like Facebook.
You’ve made that pretty clear by going off on “critical race theory”. Tell us how you know about that, and where you got your definition for it from?
I can’t speak for the the person you replied to but I get my information from a variety of sources. One is the Economist magazine, (hardly a right wing tabloid). In a recent op-ed John McWhorter, who is a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, and the author of more than a dozen books, and who also happens to be black, Mr McWhorter laments that CRT has “painted black Americans as hypersensitive children, immune to reason and indifferent to nuance”. He goes on to say that “Whites insist this is progress in order to feel unracist. Black people (although hardly in the lockstep many suppose) insist this is progress because it lends them a useful “noble victim” status. The result is a chronic, pervasive mendacity, dehumanising black people as thoroughly as outright bigotry did, despite being presented as respect and even worship.”.
You may disagree with Mr McWhorter. I certainly do. But for you to so casually dismiss another person as an gnorant, fox news dummy simply because they have different views tells us more about you than about them.
Hey I understand the frustration, but the person you’re replying too seems to me to be offering up their understanding of things in good faith, and if your goal is to maje the world better—good faith discussion is going to go a lot further in that.
Although if your goal is just to feel good dunking on that person, then I suppose this comment serves that goal, but I want to believe you do actually care about trying to make things better.
You seem like a reasonable guy, so I’ll try to explain why I heavily disagree with some of these.
-
Billionaires should exist
I get the whole “they earned their money fairly” argument, but I can never justify morally the act of having more money than you, your children and grandchildren can ever know how to spend. Try to visualize a bit how much a billion is, it’s a disgusting amount of money for a single person when you can spend them to help others in a meaningful way, like investing in healthcare to make it accessible for example.
-
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the fetus
Think of the common situations where people use abortion. It’s usually young people who are not in a position to raise a child, people who are a bad couple or not even a couple to begin with, that aren’t suitable to raise a child together, poor people that can’t afford to raise a child properly, and cases where the fetus has a life altering problem.
In all of these cases, you are prioritizing a fetus over the whole life of a person who will grow up much much worse than an average child.
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the mother
Isn’t this a conflicting view with the other one? Which one should you prioritize if the mother is too young to bear a child, the mother who is a grown person with memories, hopes and dreams, a personality, a family etc., or the fetus which doesn’t really perceive anything that’s going on at the moment?
-
Climate change is only going to affect coastal areas in a lot of years
Have you not seen what’s going on all around the world? Fires everywhere, whirlwinds, floods, all more common than they have ever been. And are you willing to bet that it’s not going to become even worse as it goes on? Because I’m willing to bet that if we don’t fix it very very soon, then climate migrations, wars and famine might even be close enough for us or our children to experience.
-
Ultimately if people want to debate you, you’re not obligated to indulge them. It’s good for discourse to put out your opinion in the way that you have (eg respectfully and without throwing barbs at everyone).
That said, some of your points are hard for me to follow.
I don’t have a perfect knowledge of exactly what’s on the left and right so please forgive me if I put something in the wrong category.
If you can’t articulate the difference, how is it that you came to identify as one? IMO “left vs right” is an intentionally vague and poorly defined concept to keep people angry and identifying with a brand, more than a coherent description of ideology.
I understand that left vs right ideally shouldn’t exist. The same goes for political parties. They do exist so here’s some of my views from both sides.
I don’t agree with critical race theory…
I hear so much about this. What does it mean? Can you give a real world example where someone is trying to implement what you oppose?
I don’t remember off the top of my head exactly what CRT is, but I remember this video was a really good explanation.
Edit: I also can’t tell you exactly where it’s being taught in the real world. It’s not a topic I’ve done thorough research in.
CRT is something that is widely mischarcterized, especially in politics. It is principally an academic topic in sociology and law.
In the simplest form, it looks at how historical treatment of groups based upon their race/ethnic background can have an impact on their descendents and how that can also impact society.
For example, due to enslavement of their ancestors, a larger proportion of African Americans are impoverished than those of European descent. This has further impacts on how they are perceived in society and vice-versa.
That’s literally the sort of thing that it is. Not assigning value to skin color but looking at how society historically has and its impacts.
The reason I asked was because I think there’s a fundamental disagreement between what it actually is that people disagree about.
Your earlier post suggests that your stance on abortion is different than that of the mainstream conservative narrative. This seems normal, based on how every vote on that issue seems to be playing out, there is a disconnect between the ideology that conservative leaders are pushing and what their supporters actually think. The exact same situation is true with affirmation action on the left - voters consistently reject it regardless of party affiliation or self identified political leaning.
I’d hear people identify CRT as being closely related to affirmative action, in that it’s an actual policy that gives out some advantage (or seeks to remove some other existing advantage, if you have a different perspective) vs being some purely academic case study more like what a other response to your response described.
Where I’m going with this is that depending on what you’re describing when you say CRT, it’s very easily possible that your position of opposing it is consistent with a clear majority of people who identify as “left”. The disagreement isn’t about ideology, but about semantics that is being exploited by a political class to drive support.
Serious question: Wouldn’t you as a conservative who doesn’t want an echo chamber therefore NOT join a conservative community? Wouldn’t THAT put you in an echo chamber?
I want both liberal and conservative views. I’m not planning on leaving lemmy.
If you find that, let me know. My entire experience on platform after platform is that the internet is 80% messy, open conversational marketplace that tends to lean left, 19% conservative echo chamber, and 1% tight, closed door communities where “reasonable” conservatives live in denial of the world around them.
If you feel like you’re in a liberal echo chamber because you see trans people being talked about as real without anyone coming to shout it all down, then what you’re really looking for is the 19% and I’m sure you’ll find it.
It’s sad that respect, empathy and basic human rights are “leftist” ideals.
Yes. And it’s imperative for us to recognize that’s where it’s come to.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that “conservative” in the context of US politics has been bifurcated. On the one hand, there are definitely traditional conservatives out there. On the other hand, the really loud ones tend to be far right edge lords who purposefully speak loudly about topics that are socially unacceptable. It’s always based on a misunderstanding of free speech, too: people are generally free to say what they want, but they are not free from the consequences imposed by society based on what they say, especially when supporting harmful activities or straight violence. This is something Elon Musk really should learn about.
I’m all for open discourse with traditional conservatives, but I’m not about to sit idly by while Nazis return to the stage. There was a war and the outcome was pretty darned clear. So, I’d say it’s a good example of bad apples ruining the bunch (though from what I have seen, the
numberratio of Nazis vs traditional conservatives is sadly pretty high). I think it is an issue that will need to be fixed between conservatives, ultimately. Shutting down Nazis (again) seems quite acceptable to me, however.the number of Nazis vs traditional conservatives is sadly pretty high
I think you mean ratio, not number.
Yes, and just edited. Thanks.
Normal, klassical conservative or “Republican party crazy level” racism and nazism?
the former is a dead concept in the u.s., the latter has its own propaganda-spewing outlets.
Are you saying that there isn’t a single person in the USA whose beliefs align with the former definition of conservatism?
They might be, but they’re considered leftists.
The Overton window moves so fast to the right in the US that it has a visible Doppler effect.
There are a lot of them. We call them democrats/liberals now.
Fortunately not everyone lives in the US
You know Carlos too?
Could you define “conservative” in terms of politics (presumably US)? For example, low taxes and small government? And/or anti abortion and pro religion? Anti gun safety legislation? Anti regulation?
Perhaps you’re looking for the more contemporary definition of “conservative” that’s come about since the Tea Party or MAGA movements started? Mostly focused on being against whatever liberals/progressive are for?
As others have mentioned I think there are a lot of spaces out there for the latter group. I’m not sure many exist for the former group.
None exist for the former group, you toe one of the other two lines completely or you can go fuck off, individual thought is sacrelige and nuance is dead.
You’re already contributing to a balanced discussion. keep at it and be the change you want to see. I feel the whole “belonging to a camp” thing in terms of opinions and politics is too simplistic thinking. Some people like myself happen to have opinions that will range across the political spectrum. Let’s say a very political person starts a conversation, but is swapped out for someone else from their “camp”; Isn’t it boring to know all of their talking points and opinions before they even start talking? Imo that’s detrimental to free thinking and learning to accept other viewpoints. The thought in politics is that we must all agree on all of our camps points or be chastised for not complying, also we must make the other side see that our side was correct all along otherwise our side will loose. Nah fuck that, let’s just learn to have conversations with a variety of opinions first.
I find it very weird how certain specific issues are assigned to a certain political leaning or more correct correct, how you are expected to believe a certain way in all topics depending on your voting history.
A couple examples are religion and abortion. What do these have to do with any political leaning in the US or any country for that matter? Our maybe the better question to ask is why do people think there is some universal law that dictates what side of the political spectrum you lie on based on certain beliefs that have nothing to do with politics?
That’s the point. This liberal vs conservative isn’t even working for the US. In an international community like Lemmy it’s even worse, as what people from the US define as left and right does not work for western Europe for example. In Germany liberal in a modern sense is seen equal to neoliberal, what is democrats for US is right conservative for us, what is left in Europe is communism for the US and so on, you get it.
It may work for parties on a regional level, but for individuals, forget it.
How can you be so obtuse?
The Republican Party is forcing their religious beliefs on everyone (abortion, gay rights, etc) on everyone, claiming the US is a Christian nation.
Don’t be an ass. Not that it bugs me when you get personal but Lemmy is more caustic than Reddit if you want people to think a bit.
The connection between conservatism and religion/abortion exists because of a well documented effort by Reagan era republicans to culturally connect them. Imo there is no underlying rationale besides “we will create and maintain moral wedge issues to keep religious voters on the hook”, while they work on their true goals- the consolidation of wealth and power further into the oligarchy.
Exactly what I am saying. Religion was never a left or right thing. That is not even the definition of left or right politics. For some reason it for attached to one but that is a human construct and a US construct. Most other countries don’t portray religion to a certain political leaning.
This is so important. In essence, politics should be about our view, and critically searching for those who best represent it (or the most important part of it at the current moment), not about a ‘team we root for’ and get our views from. I think too many people forget that.
