this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
111 points (89.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40175 readers
1335 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes. They are fanatics too. Like Twitter but instead of wanting to kill people for profit, IRS wanting to kill people for not being left.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Come on, that's not true. We just want to "re-educate" you guys

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Anti-Conservative

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

  • Frank Wilhoit
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

worldwide, I would put most people on the right side of the American left/right. there are a lot of people in south asia for example. china and russia are conservative as fuck also. without looking at a wikipedia table I think that's probably most people already.

Western Europe is pretty leftish I guess, but it's not a lot of people

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The American "left" is on the far-right of almost every other country in the world. Not right, not even center. You need recalibrating

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 weeks ago

Yes. Signing up is not easy. Most people here can understand written instructions and have some basic technical knowledge. People who are not stupid tend to lean left.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

My priorities in politics is:

  1. Don't wreck the economy.
  2. Uphold the rule of law.

In my country that makes me right leaning. In the US with the current president that apparently makes me a leftist.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

You communist!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

It does seem that way from what I’ve seen. What am I? I’m the guy whose got it figured out. Always vote for the worst candidate. Its reverse psychology and works like a charm

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I don’t adopt views wholesale - I evaluate each issue on an individual basis, so my views tend to be a mixed bag. From a political standpoint, most people would probably see me as an unreliable ally as my views can be hard to predict. While I agree with many, if not most, “left-wing” ideas, there are still plenty of others that would get me labeled as a Nazi MAGA Republican.

That said, on Lemmy I’m definitely in the minority when it comes to holding certain beliefs that many would label “right-wing,” even though on other issues I can out–left-wing even most leftists.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

I am extremely left-wing, so probably skew the average all by myself. :P

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm all for the better man (or woman, or whatever). If we see eye to eye on all the important stuff then I'll vote for you if I'm legally allowed. I don't care about your affiliations as much as your history and your record as a public servant. Hence, why I always vote Dem because there's absolutely NOTHING but pussy ass nazi bitches in the GOP.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think most people feel this way, right? Like you are left-leaning if you like the policies in left-wing platforms put forth by left-wing parties, so you vote for the left-wing candidates who advocate for them. Likewise, candidates are left-wing because they are members of such parties and advocate for such policies. So saying 'I only vote for people on the basis of their policies and voting record' is like saying 'I only drink water when it's wet'—technically true, but it misses the point that you chose it because it was wet.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm team right-wing.

The right chicken wing is always tastier, so I eat that first.

Edit: Wait, this is politics? Wrong thread.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Do Twix have wings?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

See, this is why so many right-wingers are seen as simply not intelligent enough to understand basic science. Numerous studies have shown that the left-wing is on average, plumper, juicier, and more tender.

I bet you probably also believe those wing pieces with two bones are better than the big one-bone wings that look like little chicken legs, too. Typical right-winger, your brain has been melted by right-wing propaganda.

Sorry, but reality has a left-wing bias. Educate yourself, and do better.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm as left-wing as they come but to imply that drummies are somehow superior to flats is wrong-headed and shows your own biases. I'll concede that the little chicken legs are easier (and more fun) to eat, but the quality of the delicate meat between the two little wing bones in the flats ones makes them more of a delight to me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

By LEFT do you infer compassion, empathy, and class solidarity? In contrast, by RIGHT do you infer me-first, only my rights matter and only those in my clan deserve to be cared about?

Then, yes.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Well we know where you stand without doubt

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›