this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
1578 points (94.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
6028 readers
1876 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is so catastrophically problematic on so many levels. "Conservative" or "right" are valid and legitimate political orientations, just like "left" is. Posts like this that suggest that a political view is wrong are just so closed-minded and fundementally intolerant. These always seem to disregard that there is a disagreement because of ideology and always suggest that "the conservatives'" opinion is of any less value than their own. What the heck?
I regret to inform you that conservatism got hijacked and hasn't been a valid political orientation since Teddy Roosevelt left office.
"I want a fiscally conservative tax policy" is a valid political opinion.
"I think trans people are grooming kids" "I think the election was rigged" "I think women shouldn't have total control over their bodies"
Those are not. Those are bigoted bullshit beliefs hiding as political opinions.
Your entire comment actually boils down to "you are bad for not tolerating the intolerant!" ...and you can fuck all of the way off with that.
Thats just an insult, not an actual belief.
How is this not an opinion? Do you think the elections in russia are unquestionably fair?
Nobody has total control, that was never up for debate, it's just a question of where you draw the line. You can't consume heroin, for example. If you're holding a baby in your arms, you dont have the "total freedom" to drop it. Similarly, it's a valid ethical debate if and when an embrio is concidered another living being. You might say "control over their body", someone else might say "it's not their body, it's that of another human".
Your entire comment assumes that "the others" are intolerant and you are the tolerant saint. The truth is, what is tolerant depends on your morals and is thus subjective. Tolerating other's opinions is a fundemental requirement for a democracy, with the exception of opinions that are anti-democratic. Not tolerating a whole political view, however, has nothing to do with that. That would just means being an intolerant asshole and claiming that one's own political beliefs are the only ones that are correct.
Trans are grooming: It is an insult and LITERALLY what the US conservatives are running on. You need to understand this.
Elections: We aren't talking about Russian elections.
Abortions: Read "A defence of abortion" by Judith Jarvis and get back to me. But before you do, stop acting like "you don't have the right to drop a baby onto the floor!" is remotely in the ballpark of an apt comparison. Fuck off with that nonsense too.
Yeah but you said that doubting the validity of elections is not an opinion. We weren't talking about any country's elections specifically.
I never claimed it to be but dont you realize that it refutes your claim that one should have "total" control over one's body? This showd that its a matter of where you draw the line. Its not black and white. Can you kill a baby after it was born? Two minutes before? A month before? 6 months before?
This entire thread is clearly about us politics. Furthermore, the idea that you can use THE ENTIRE GLOBE to cherry pick any scenario is absurd and you know it. Stop trying to play that copout game and own the fact that we are discussing American politics.
"I never said it was but it totally was!" So no to that as well. Argue in good faith or fuck off.
To make sure you can't interpret this the wrong way:
To sum it up for you:
Dude you just did it again. You can't say "I didn't compare them" and then immediately say how they compare. You aren't this stupid, stop acting like it.
No I did not and it does not matter whether they compare.
Yes. You did. Stop pretending you are too dumb to notice something that obvious
I doesnt matter. Still, I didnt.
"these things are not comparable but look how they both share this property!"
Grow the fuck up you child.
Didnt say that.
You're arguing over nothing anyway because it doesnt even matter if they're comparable.
Just answer these two questions: A) Do you have to right to drop your living baby? B) Do you have the right to do what you want (this includes A)?
Give me a quote. I did not.
Thank you for saying it.
Agreed. This is a terrible take. Is basically implying "both sides are the same", a staple in the ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM group but they're not. Blue side wants to maintain the status quo and maybe, very slightly, make light progressive changes (but again very small changes) while red side is trying to destroy social safety nets (cutting socials security), women's autonomy (roe vs wade and more) and democracy itself (Jan 6). That's not to mention that Republicans for the most part built their ideology based off hate. Their drive comes from reactionary outrage.
Democrats: "Stop genocide now!"
Republicans: "We won't stop the genocide!"
Centrists: "Can't we find a middle ground here? How about just a little genocide?"
Republicans: "I guess we're okay with that."
Democrats: "No!"
Centrists: "Wow, so much for the tolerant left!"
Democrats: Genocide ok over there.
Republicans: Maybe some here too though.
Centrists: How 'bout them Red Wings?
Me: You all suck.
You: "BoTh SiDeS"
Me: You too.
I mean, while I sort of agree with you on one hand, on the other hand I saw conservatives try to overthrow democracy and successfully overturn roe v wade recently so....
Yeah but extremes on either side of the spectrum try to overthrow democracy. We have to fight the extremes but not the whole political orientation.
I just looked up Roe V Wade (I'm not from the US) and it appears that it was recently overturned by a federal court. A court does not make the laws, so overturning an older case means, as fas as I know, correcting the decision on laws that they have to follow, no matter if they like it or not. If you want a law on abortion, you should get the parliament to pass such a law IMO.
Generally, if someone's methdology is unacceptable, that doesn't invalidate their political views and certainly not the whole political orientation.
Its easy to have this opinion when you're not a US citizen, you don't have the same frame of reference as we do for a conversation involving our own government. Especially considering that in the US left/right dont even exist, we have right/far right, there is no left in our country, this is just how the conversation is framed so we can trick ourselves into thinking that there is a more progessive party to vote for. When an American says "right" or "conservative" they mean the people who identify as such in our country, those people are actually extremely far right, usually Christian nationalists. We essentially have a government that is setup so your vote is for "The continuing unrestricted rampage of capitalism on the working class" and "were going to see what a dictatorship by an orange dipshit is like"
I've now informed myself on the Republicans and the Democrats views and policies and the Republucans indeed seem quite right, more so than I thought. My stance on this post is still the same but I guess this helps to put things into perspective...
The court does make the laws now because a conservative Congress illegally delayed SCOTUS appointments and rushed others so the conservative president was able to stack it with wildly unqualified conservative justices. Their guy also did an insurrection. 1/3 of the court are appointments from an insurrectionist who tried to bribe a foreign country to smear his political opponent. All conservatives are totally fine with all of that.
What's a SCOTUS appointment if you dont mind me asking?
Seems like a questionable system though, right? Im vaguely familar on how partys in the US can appoint judges for life as soon as others leave...
Isn't this favorable appointing of judges done on both sides, depnding on the governing patty (aka Democrats and Republicans) or what is the scandal about what happened under Trump?
Supreme Court of The United States appointment. Presidents appoint a candidate they like, congress greenlights their ascent to the position.
Oh highly questionable, it's caused a lot of people to rethink the safety of lifetime appointments. But there are avenues to try, someone doesn't have to retire or die, the number of SCOTUS judges can be raised and then you can appoint new judges, but then so can the next party and so on so forth, or at least they tell us that the threat of 'the other side' packing the courts is too much of a danger for their own party to pack the courts
It is done on both sides, except both sides haven't had an equal chance to make appointments due to life span of existing judges and the then Senate Majority Leader (senator who is appointed the head of that ruling body when their party takes a majority in that body) in 2008 blocked all Supreme Court appointments that came up for all 8 years of the Obama administration. That was Mitch McConnell, and he, and his party, blocked appointment of new judges by just never allowing the motion to be voted on, as the Republicans held the senate 2 years into Obama presidency (when some seats opened) and as such their majority leader gets to decide the docket of what will be voted on in the senate and he chose to never once allowed SCOTUS appointee motions to reach the floor.
Thanks, this clears things up for me
Well you say that but in recent memory only one side actually has tried. I don’t think it’s really fair to “both sides” this when one has and one hasn’t.
Its fair no neither side. Just because right extremists do bad stuff where you live and left extremists don't seem to exist or be as prelevant where you live, that doesn't make the whole political direction (e.g. left-leaning, right-leaning) invalid. That just makes extremists bad. That would be like saying "Staling = bad, therefore every non-condervative = bad".
It's not like "the rights" or "the lefts" have tried to overthrow the government. More like: people whose views are so extremely right/left that they are antidemocratic have tried to overthrow democracy.
It definitely does. A conservative in the United States is not the same as a conservative in the EU so in the context of one country, it’s entirely accurate. You can’t project a left/right spectrum globally when each country or group of countries have their own delineations on what constitutes “Liberal” or “Conservative”. One country could have a “conservative” ideology that’s considered entirely “liberal” by another country.
Except they did. “The rights” in the U.S. attempted to overthrow the duly elected president elect and install the opposition into power. It was a comically piss poor attempt, but an attempt it was nonetheless.
... which is why find these generalized statements on political orientations stupid. At least the girl in the post could have said "Republican" or sth.
No, it's not "the rights" who did that. It was a group of people from the right side of the spectrum, presumably the more extreme ones who did that. You can't generalize every condervative person into that group.
(Although the fact that it was actually Trump who called for the attack is highly problematic, even more so the fact that he now is again up as a candidate elected by his party).
I’m positive she wasn’t making a generalized statement globally. She’s referencing the Conservative Party in the country she lives in, probably the United States, which is the Republican Party.
It was the conservatives (The American right) who did that. And while a minority of them were physically there to perpetrate it, they were in fact supported by the majority of conservatives in the country. Several polls have been done about this and while a majority of Americans condemned the attack, the majority of conservatives have defended it.
You’re trying really hard to split hairs, move the goalposts internationally to muddy the argument, and make incorrect assumptions about the demographics involved but that facts remain what they are.
I've also realized this (my views on this have been changing while discussing this) and apologize fir that. To explain where I'm coming from:
I fit into the "target" demographic she is referencing. I realize this is a post referring to the USA but I have noticed the polarizing mindset that this portrays also come up, with increasing frequency, here where I live (in Europe). Criticism of the Republican party and specific methodologies are projected onto the label "conservative", which is then also labeled bad. Posts such as these are written in such a genelarized way that they manage to polarize people from outside of the US too and it is, in my opinion, not obvious that this is referring to the Republican Party's methodology or their specific demands, rather than their general conservative beliefs.
In general, I don't agree with these posts trying to make people feel bad for their political opinion or feel peer-pressured (she makes it seem like the whole generation is expected to be non-conservative and those who are are weird outsiders). I find them highly manipulative and obviously polarizing.
Please show me an example of extreme Democrats trying to overthrow the US. This just isn't the case and there is no "both sides" on this issue. The current conservative party in the US is not actually a conservative party. It is fear mongering bigotry and authoritarianism. Full stop. So stop acting like anyone is against the standard "progressive vs conservative" debate. We are outside of that normal.
The democrats are by no means an extreme party. Those are not left extremists.
YOU are outside of that normal. But then, why do you project the disagreement with one party to the "standart progressive vs conservative debate". You can't take one party from one country that you dislike and genelarize that "condervative=bad". That would be like saying "China's social credit system is bad, therefore leftists are bad". No!
By no means do I support the Republican party or their views but claiming conservative to be illegitimate just because your only choice of a conservative party is bad is so strange.
Does the fact that we think even "regular" conservatives have shitty beliefs make you feel better? Do conservatives want to fund public services? Do they want to reduce police funding? Do they want to reduce inequity and tax the rich? Trying to "conserve" the shitty past that we all share is a fucking shit ideology.
I could already imagine what you think of their ideology. The problem I have is with labeling a general political orientation as illegitimate.
They probably don't want to increase their funds. But yeah, public services exist for a reason. How many funds they should get it a debate to be had.
Probably not (?), though would you mind explaining what the whole police defunding demands are about? Is it just currently viewed as a waste of money or what?
They probably dont want to tax the rich more than they currently do, but yeah they would AFAIK still tax them (and tax them more than normal people). Inequality is a moral-based question again. You may find it fair if everyone has the same amount of money, someone else might find it fair that you get more money the more you earn, etc.