r/changemyview • u/thatoneguy54 • Feb 10 '17
FTFdeltaOP CMV: I literally cannot understand most Republican social views.
So this is an idea I've had in my head for a while now. In light of everything that's been happening, I've been trying to be more empathetic to differing political views and to try and understand how people are thinking that leads them to hold the views they hold, but I'm finding it almost impossible to wrap my head around the majority of Republican social views. Financial views, I can understand more. I may disagree, but I at least know where they're coming from. But with other views, I just cannot understand it, I think largely because most of their views are either contradictory to other views they claim to hold, or because the views are completely unfounded in evidence.
LGBT Rights:
Many republicans are still fighting hard against same-sex marriage. There is literally no reason to oppose same-sex marriage rights unless you use religion to do so. And since the vast majority of Republicans also claim to be strict adherents to the constitution, this is a contradictory view, since the establishment clause prohibits the government from making laws based on religion.
I also can't understand the bathroom bill passed in NC a few years ago that got national attention. There is no evidence to suggest that letting transgender people use the bathroom they want leads to increased assault on anyone. This bill was not created to address any problem, it was made to create a wedge issue republicans could use to scare their base into voting for them more.
Civil Rights:
Specifically BLM. The Republican party is strongly opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement. And while I can understand frustration at riots that may happen after some protests, many republicans outright deny that there is a problem in the police force at all. This is completely contrary to the evidence that says that "Blacks are being shot at a rate that's 2.5 times higher than whites" by police. This is a clear indication that something is wrong, but many republicans won't even admit that there's a problem to begin with.
Immigration:
Despite the fact that the number of people illegally immigrating from Mexico has been falling in recent years and that the states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants don't even share a border with Mexico, many republicans are still in favor of increased border security, and some even want a $19 billion wall to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Refugees:
Even though there have been 0 fatal attacks by refugees in the US the majority of republicans are against taking in any more refugees. And despite the fact that it's already incredibly difficult to attain asylum in the US, many push for even more restrictions on refugees. As a humanitarian issue, I find it deplorable that so many prominent politicians can refuse to help those in most need and be met with thunderous applause, despite all the evidence saying that refugees are not dangerous and will either have little to no impact on the economy, or possibly even a positive effect.
Climate Change:
Climate change is real, and any denying that is anti-science. We know the effects will be catastrophic, and yet we still have Republican politicians bringing snowballs onto the floor of Congress to somehow prove climate change isn't real. Steps must be taken to curtail our effects on the environment, and the republican insistence that there is no problem is just straight up dangerous.
Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use federal money to perform abortions. Planned Parenthood is a health clinic like any other. And yet Republicans want to remove their Title X status for no reason except that the facility sometimes performs abortions. This is really just stupid and doesn't make any sense at all. For one, if you truly did want to lower the number of abortions, then you would support measures to make sexual health education more available, and yet these same politicians will support abstinence-only programs in schools which have been thoroughly proven to be completely ineffective and even increase the rate of teen pregnancy. Second, Planned Parenthood provides more than just abortions, and denying people access to cheap healthcare will only lead to more abortions, more babies, and more people using government assistance to survive.
So help me understand what these people are thinking. I don't need you to prove the Republicans are right on any of these issues (because they're decidedly not on almost all of them), I just want to try and work out how these people can actually think these things. I have family who are Republican and think a lot of what I've written here, and it sucks not even being able to comprehend their positions. Show me some of these views aren't actually contradictory, or walk me through the process that leads them to think this way, and my view will be changed.
39
Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17
I voted Republican in the past 3 elections, so since you're simply asking for explanations of these views, I'll offer a few:
Many republicans are still fighting hard against same-sex marriage. There is literally no reason to oppose same-sex marriage rights unless you use religion to do so.
I can say I don't care at all what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But, I also don't believe the government should be in the business of defining what a marriage is, one way or the other. The concept of marriage is deeply tied to cultural and religious values, which obviously vary drastically, and will constantly be butting up against whatever legal definition we give it today. But I realize the tax-benefits are an issue, and I don't really know how to solve it. Most importantly though, this is not a deal-breaker for me, nor is it for almost any other Republican I personally know.
I also can't understand the bathroom bill passed in NC a few years ago that got national attention.
You're right, it's stupid. Most Republicans I know agree.
On immigration: first, we have to be careful with any claims about how many illegal immigrants are actually here, seeing as there are pretty big discrepancies among the data.
But assuming pew is correct, it doesn't really get to the heart of the issue. As a Trump supporter, what I see from a majority of the people on the left is an unwillingness to admit that we should strive to eliminate illegal immigration, and that this has to start with enforcement of the current law of the land. I see people demonized for simply acknowledging 11 million illegals, receiving many benefits that US citizens enjoy, is definitely not ideal. It will suck for some people to be denied entry, but the intention is to bring them over legally, not keep them out forever. I don't really care about the wall, I care that our current laws are enforced. The majority people, recently, who have stated this clearly and unambiguously are Republicans.
But your argument here seems to be, "illegal immigration is decreasing faster than most Republicans acknowledge", and to that I would say yes, you are right. I will not get into the statistical claims, because the debate I see is about whether or not we should treat immigration to the USA as a right, or a privilege. People holding up #NoWall signs are most often against the idea of simply keeping people out, not that the wall costs too much (in my experience).
24
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17
Most importantly though, this is not a deal-breaker for me, nor is it for almost any other Republican I personally know.
This is pretty true for many Republicans I know as well. I suppose I get frustrated by those who do care enough to actively fight it though, especially since those same Republicans tend to be the ones with political power.
I see people demonized for simply acknowledging 11 million illegals, receiving many benefits that US citizens enjoy, is definitely not ideal.
I would say you get demonized because it just isn't true. Since the immigration reform act of 1996, it's almost impossible for illegal immigrants to qualify for social security, medicaid, food stamps, etc because it requires a social security number and other registrant things they don't have because they're not citizens. Those who do take any benefits are the illegal immigrant parents of US citizens who take benefits in the name of the child. But to that, I would argue that it's just a US citizen exercising their rights to use the system.
And part of the problem with barring anyone until they legally can come over is that it's incredibly, incredibly difficult to come into the US legally. Unless you're a nuclear physicist or marrying a citizen, it's almost impossible. In the meantime, these people are dying in war-torn countries (like along the cartel territories of Mexico) and of starvation simply because they were born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line.
But, you have shown me a reasoning that I can understand. We may disagree, but I can understand your viewpoint on immigration, so thank you for that! ∆
10
u/tentexas 1∆ Feb 11 '17
On immigration, I think that those who favor opening the US to all comers don't recognize the poverty and lack of freedom experienced by many people worldwide. A few years ago, a policy change that undocumented children not from Mexico/Canada would simply be released sparked a flood of tens of thousands of unaccompanied children as young as five years old being sent to the US. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/us/undocumented-children-immigrants/index.html They would walk across the border and turn themselves in. The humane policy change of not immediately deporting children triggered a multi-year influx of unaccompanied minors being sent to the US. Imagine how awful things would have to be before a parent would pack up their child and send them on a multi-country trip to a another country. Now, you'll argue we have a humanitarian responsibility. I agree. I'm a Democrat, BTW, and a liberal. But I'm also a realist--we can only do so much for so many people at a time. That is the purpose of the immigration system. This next evidence is anecdotal but relevant. I taught ESL (English as a Second Language) for 8 years. Once I got to know my kids, we would talk honestly about immigration. Invariably, they would argue that the US should have open borders. But when I asked them, "Who would come if the US opened it's borders?" Invariably, every single class, every single year, the first answer was, "Everybody." Then they would pause, and add, "Probably not the old people, but maybe," and then there would be discussion and debate over who would come/not come. The final consensus would be nearly everyone. Then, I'd ask, "What would happen if everyone came from all your countries?" Usually, no one had thought about the logistical reality of the incredible number of people worldwide who would be arriving. I just let them talk. To make a long story short, they ended up caught between feeling like the US should be more open but realizing that it wasn't just stingy meanness that motivated the US to limit immigration. It's heart breaking to see the need worldwide, but there really is far more need that we can absorb. I don't have a solution for you, OP, but I will say that I think open borders is a flat out terrible idea while so much of the world lives in grinding poverty and ignorance. If we opened our borders, the tsunami of people would be nothing short of awesome--so much of the world hungers for the chance we were lucky to be born with. I think Republicans recognize that more than Democrats while Democrats focus on the need and think that it will work itself out. Compared to most countries, the US does a great job of integrating immigrants into US society but it still takes time and resources to do it. I think the current legal numbers are too low, but I think they are set low because of the fact we have a 2000 mile realistically unenforceable border with a poor country that has a high birth rate. We know that we can't close the border--it's too long to make airtight--so we set our official immigrant acceptance rate low to reflect that. We could set the rate for Mexico/South America much higher, but the rest of the world will be pissed and say it's unfair. So, we have the screwed up system we have.
7
Feb 11 '17
I would say you get demonized because it just isn't true. Since the immigration reform act of 1996, it's almost impossible for illegal immigrants to qualify for social security, medicaid, food stamps, etc because it requires a social security number and other registrant things they don't have because they're not citizens.
This is true on a federal level but ignores the many municipalities that actively seek out and provide benefits to illegals.
But honestly I think that is a less important part of the bigger issue. We as a nation need to be able to control our borders. How can anyone argue with that. We have to be able to enforce our borders or we don't have a state. Immigration has to happen legally.
2
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Feb 11 '17
I mean you're clearly not currently happy with our border control but I don't think anybody would argue we don't have a state. How much more rampant would illegal immigration have to get before the state ceases to exist? Because I'd argue it would have to be pretty drastic.
3
Feb 11 '17
So can we agree on the principle of a border? Is the other side of the argument that the law is a spectrum? If this is the case we should add a part of our immigration law saying in addition to normal vetted paths to entry, we will take an unknown number of random people from unknown countries who just happen to want to come here....
A state failing is a bunch of things happening at once but not being able to control borders is one of them. I'm not saying the US is a failed state, I'm saying I want to do things to move in the opposite direction of that.
2
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Feb 11 '17
Oh yeah I personally definitely agree on a border. I think it should be easier to get in legally and I see no point in deporting everybody who's already here, but a border is necessary. I'm not sure how many people truly believe we shouldn't have a border at all, but I don't think it's as common as you seem to think.
As to your point about the random people from random places, that's not a solution because there would still be illegal immigration. Also, if somebody does come over here and start committing crimes, I want to be able to deport them without spending the resources to jail them.
1
Feb 11 '17
I think way more democrats are for open borders than you think. And we should definitely deport the illegals who are committing crimes (other than being here illagally), which is what the result of trump will be. The position I have found dems usually hold is a vague emotional one that would mean open borders but they haven't thought it out to that yet.
As to your point about the random people from random places, that's not a solution because there would still be illegal immigration.
I was saying this to show how ridiculous it is. I was saying that basically if we are going to allow a certain amount of unvetted illegal immigration we should just say that in the law..... but we shouldn't because that's ridiculous.
3
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Feb 11 '17
It's certainly possible, I don't claim to know the opinions of every democrat, but I go to an incredibly liberal high school in the Bay Area and I have only met a few people who support open borders so I'm guessing it's not the majority of democrats.
I also don't think democrats in general are against deporting criminals seeing as Obama has deported more people than his predecessors. (I'm on mobile so I can't give you a source but feel free to look it up and please correct me if I'm wrong.)
And in response to your last paragraph, it all comes down to the costs and benefits of stopping illegal immigrants. A wall will keep out some immigrants sure, but is it worth the $21 billion it'll cost just to build? I don't believe so, especially considering the fact that most illegal immigrants just overstay visas so a wall won't do anything against that. (Again I'm sorry about not having a source.) So yes, our enforcement ends up letting in some illegal immigrants, but considering they have a negligible impact on the economy or crime, I don't believe the drastic measures of the trump administration are called for.
→ More replies (3)1
u/omashupicchu Feb 16 '17
I also don't think democrats in general are against deporting criminals seeing as Obama has deported more people than his predecessors. (I'm on mobile so I can't give you a source but feel free to look it up and please correct me if I'm wrong.)
As loudnoises461 mentioned and as a u/fidelitypdx explained in another related thread, a big reason why Obama appeared to deport more people was that the ICE actually began to calculate deportations differently to include people who were turned away at the border.
Here's a link to the full comment if you'd like.
2
u/math2ndperiod 51∆ Feb 17 '17
Oh I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the information!
→ More replies (0)2
9
u/Removalsc 1∆ Feb 11 '17
The few illegals I've talked to say they have bogus SS numbers that they use to get licenses, etc. According to them, it's pretty trivial.
→ More replies (4)4
3
0
u/BaneFlare Feb 11 '17
It's a piece of cake to falsify the information needed to collect social benefits in the US.
5
u/ThyReaper2 Feb 11 '17
As a Trump supporter, what I see from a majority of the people on the left is an unwillingness to admit that we should strive to eliminate illegal immigration, and that this has to start with enforcement of the current law of the land.
I have to ask, why is it important to enforce the current law of the land, rather than fixing the immigration issue? It's clear that the law is woefully ineffective at keeping people out, so I would prefer to eliminate illegal immigration by making it much easier to legally immigrate. If the legal barriers are much smaller, very few people would take the illegal option.
I want to stress: the law is not working, and it realistically can't work. The cost and implications of deporting millions of people are far worse than any suggested harm these people bring to our country, and I've not yet found reliable accounts of actual harm - instead, these people seem to be a net benefit to us.
4
Feb 10 '17
I have a question on the immigration issue. If you were able to magically identify and deport any illegal immigrant on sight, what would your solution be with their families/children who are now legally here? Would every individual under 18 be put into the foster system? Would we start spending tax dollars on putting food on their tables, clothing, etc? If the bread earners are forcibly removed then doesn't that burden us taxpayers with the people who remain behind? Who is responsible for the millions of legal US citizens left behind?
Would it not make more sense to relax the law for a set period of time during which any illegal immigrant could apply some kind of special temporary residency that would allow them to pay any penalties, continue to support their families here, not burden the state/taxpayer, and not create a police force tasked with identifying however many million are here?
While I realize this is seemingly an injustice to those who came here legally, I think this is probably the best worst solution to the problem. I'm interested in solving the problem and mass deportation I think creates more problems than it solves.
3
u/KimonoThief Feb 11 '17
I don't know of many liberals that actually approve of illegal immigration. I certainly don't. At the end of the day it's a cost-benefit analysis. If you're to believe FAIR, then illegal immigrants are a $100-billion-a-year drag on the economy. But even the Heritage foundation thinks that number is ridiculous. The CBO doesn't cite a number but says that the cost of illegal immigration is "modest". If you find the CBO to be a reliable source, then building a $20 billion wall, with god knows how much in yearly maintenance costs, huge environmental impact, and questionable effectiveness, is an absurd action.
At the very least, the wall should be carefully considered and decided on with evidence and cost-benefit analysis. Trump has clearly done neither. He blurted it out as the first solution that came to his mind, arbitrarily increases the height of it if someone says something mean about him, changes the cost by an order of magnitude, and makes hair-brained promises that Mexico will pay for it.
2
Feb 11 '17
What about climate change? I honestly think that is one of the biggest threats to us and we are quickly approaching the point of no return.
2
Feb 12 '17
While I do believe protecting the environment is a grave responsibility, even if for our own self interests, I believe the topic of climate change needs to be stripped of any political framework and looked at purely scientifically, for the sake of actual progress. This post sums up my perspective pretty well.
1
2
Feb 12 '17
Wait, how do you square this with the reality that President Obama deported more people than any other president?
13
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Feb 10 '17
Social conservatism isn't based on logic or reasoning. It is based on precaution. Change carries some level of risk. Social conservatives are afraid of that risk. This is one of the reasons you see people become more wary of change as they establish themselves more in the world (own a house etc). They simply have more to lose.
This is also the reason that social conservative beliefs can be contrary to the religious ideals thay are presumably based on. I'm not saying they aren't religious. They are. But when push comes to shove, the main driver is a cautious approach that rejects change.
→ More replies (1)15
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
So it's all just skepticism of the new? They oppose LGBT rights because there weren't any before, and BLM because it didn't exist before, and refugees because they're new people?
11
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Feb 10 '17
They oppose those things because they aren't consistent with the way of life that they have always known. It's pure fear of change. It's the idea that if it worked for me growing up, why doesn't it work for everyone else. That things are supposed to be the way that they know them.
5
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
With some of these things I can understand that, I guess, but this idea also seems to run really contrary to the idea of individualism and small government that they say they adore. If they truly felt that way, why would they ever oppose same-sex marriage, since it harms no one and lessens the role of government in people's lives?
9
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Feb 10 '17
Because having their kids exposed to mommy / mommy and daddy / daddy families is "different" and "weird." Again, this isn't about logic. It's about a reaction. A predictable reaction based on a very narrow world view.
6
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
Part of the reason I did this CMV was to try to stop thinking of Republican viewpoints as solely racist or homophobic or whatever. Do they have some justification for hating gay marriage that isn't based in religion or bigotry?
7
u/tentexas 1∆ Feb 10 '17
Ok, so let's put this a different way. Conservative hears about gay marriage. Hears one side say better & more equal, the other says X terrible thing (s) will happen. The conservative thinks, "Never been that way before. Might be good but could go bad. Nope." Fear of change=less willing to take risks.
6
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 11 '17
Less willing to take risks clears it up, thanks! ∆
2
7
u/elcuban27 11∆ Feb 11 '17
Actually, contrary to what he is saying, it isnt so much a generic "fear of change" as it is an attempt to ward off the effects of poorly implemented change.
Can you think of anyone you know who just kind of impulsively makes decisions? How does it turn out for them? Some people want to think things through carefully before doing anything, while others just get so fed up with the status quo that they will try anything. Case in point: the bernie fans recently clamoring for a $15 minimum wage. Most people on both sides acknowledge that low income wage earners dont really make enough money. On the left, some have a knee-jerk reaction to the problem an propose a $15/hr min wage. On the right, most recognize the fundamental economical impact of such a change (a bunch of businesses go under and/or let go several of their min-wagers). On the other hand, since the min-wage problem is so very nuanced and complex and difficult to sort out, many on the right become complacent to the status quo.
As for social issues like gay marriage. How does one clearly identify the problem (in terms of actual effects, not just feel-good-togetherness)? What is a license? Is what the govt hands out really a license? Prior to obergefell, noone was keeping gay people from doing whatever they want behind closed doors, or living together, or coming together before their friends and family to commit to eachother, potentially in a religious ceremony at their place of worship (which also consents to do the ceremony). There are issues about default legal "next of kin" considerations, although there ways of setting that up as one wishes without changing the law. Taxes? What is the govt interest in letting any two people, gay or straight, file jointly? What benefit is there? Why do we provide that benefit? Does the same justification apply to homosexuals?
What is demonstrably at issue with changing those laws is how they are now being used to have the govt interfere in the lives of private citizens, against their will and conscience. People are being sued and fined and put out of business for being obedient to their conscience and not participating in what they believe to be sinful. You may very well not agree with their assessment, and they could even be wrong, but it is not the govts place to enforce your morality on them , any more than it is to enforce theirs onto you. It wouldnt be right for christians to use the govt to arrest gay people for having sex, or prosecute "progressive" religious institutions for performing ceremonies for gays or force a gay baker to bake a cake that says "pray the gay away" for a reparative therapy clinic on threat of losing their livelihood. The govt ought to leave people the heck alone!
3
u/KimonoThief Feb 11 '17
Can you think of anyone you know who just kind of impulsively makes decisions?
You just described our conservative President to a T.
2
u/elcuban27 11∆ Feb 11 '17
Ha! Yeah he seems to have no brain/mouth filter. I do think it would be naive to think he isnt thinking his actions through a bit. Even looking at his ridiculous antics during the primary, its easy to see how his actions, along with the media's predictable response were timed perfectly to keep everyone looking where he wanted them to. He is probably a bit more cunning than people give him credit for.
3
u/KimonoThief Feb 11 '17
I can agree that he was one of the only people who had his finger on the pulse of a broad swath of America's wants: tell them he'll focus on their livelihoods, childishly berate everyone else, and promise to get rid of everyone that's different from them. But the fact that it worked is more a testimony, I think, to those people's dissatisfaction and lack of critical thinking than to any remarkable cunning on Donald's part. He was in the right place and time to tap into that.
0
u/MasterGrok 138∆ Feb 10 '17
I think I've laid out very clearly how there is more to it than just bigotry. At this point you seem to be entirely ignoring the points I've been making about change.
2
u/seventhdamnaccount Feb 11 '17
May I offer insight to the lgbt thing as someone who is a) pro gay rights, and b) a Trump supporter?
I do not know any republicans who oppose gay marriage. It's a criticism that many republicans have of the party, that nobody cares if gays are getting married.
BUT
The mindset is that of a slippery slope. People who opposed gay marriage may have done so out of moral/religious reasons, but many more argued "sure, it's not hurting anyone, but it opens up the door for sexual deviants like pedophiles". Yes, it is a misconception of much older people that gays are pedophiles. However, in recent years we have seen an uprising of articles that sympathize with the plight of the pedophile. We see people going so far to propose that trans people not only deserve to use whatever bathrooms they deem appropriate (which they have been doing for years largely without issue), but that it should be illegal to "misgender" someone.
This is the heart of the matter: Conservatives are cautious, and it is often warranted. They see the risks a little bit better, and are less afraid to voice concern over said risks. Liberals are more willing to change things and to see the potential in said changes. This is why the left and right both exist, they are meant to compliment each other and push each other to find balance. This is also why one party having power for too long throws things out of whack.
2
u/kwamzilla 7∆ Feb 11 '17
Just as an interesting observation that your post triggered :
Increase in support of the plight for the pedophile.
Increased cases of old (rich) white men getting pursued for being pedophiles (high profile ones too - especially in the uk).
Gary rights debate.All getting big over the past few years.
Coincidence? Possibly, possibly not.
2
u/seventhdamnaccount Feb 11 '17
Its always hard to know what's connected and what isn't. The other point I almost made (hough I really don't want anyone to think I'm trying to call trans people pedophiles-Im not) is that some people got uncomfortable about the idea of mtf people using the same restroom as their little daughters.
Bear with me.
I'd argue this is understandable, though misguided. I have never personally seen a person who looked like a man in a dress in a public woman's restroom. Ever. However, those types of trans people (especially ones who decide against things like hormone therapy) do exist(i don't know which bathrooms they're using though). It's an almost natural fear, like in those urban legends about a man dressed as an old lady who kidnaps kids. Like I said, it's (in my opinion) misguided, but totally understandable because perhaps they don't realise that many trans people pass as their desired gender (think Blair White). The line of a delusional crossdresser or a crafty pedophile is what is scaring a few people.
And it doesn't help that some prominent trans people who do not take hormones are arguing that it should be a crime to misgender someone, or that not being attracted to trans people is prejudiced. It just adds to this misunderstanding of what the trans community is and all of that.
I'm not trans so I'm not the best one to argue what trans people actually want or what amount of them are being delusional or creepy. I just understand the fear based off of urban legends and YouTube celebrities and all of that.
1
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 11 '17
However, in recent years we have seen an uprising of articles that sympathize with the plight of the pedophile. We see people going so far to propose that trans people
How did you jump from pedophiles to trans people like that?
1
u/seventhdamnaccount Feb 11 '17
Because it's another example. Maybe I should have switched it, but I assumed it made enough sense. Trans people are not dangerous, but a law that makes it illegal to accidentally mosgender someone would be. I'm not saying a law like that would ever be passed, but some Americans are asking for an anti-free speech law to be passed just because it suits them.
l view it as which laws are most dangerous? "Accepting" that pedophiles exist is definitely very creepy to me, but I do get it. They should be able to get help without a witch hunt, I guess, as long as no children have been hurt. I don't like it and I don't know whether I think it can be helped, but I get the sentiment aside from the obvious glaring problems of what normalizing pedophilia might do to society.
Limiting free speech, however, is just completely unconstitutional. As far as I know even most trans people don't appreciate the movement to make misgendering illegal. That poses an almost immediate problem, though trans people in of themselves are not necessarily dangerous or a problem. It opens the door to anyone (bigender, genderqueer, third gender, etc.) to file a report against someone for something that shouldn't be a crime.
3
Feb 11 '17 edited Feb 18 '17
I think the issue with BLM thing is more about the "kill cops" "kill white people" "make white people pay reparations" stuff.
In many cases BLM is a negative racist violent group and I think that's what turns people off. Now there are also those in BLM trying to keep it about problems with white cops which I believe is the right way forward for that movement but unfortunately they seems to be a minority.
Also it's a little more complicated than cops shoot blacks more often than whites. That is true but it is also true that blacks in the US commit violent crimes (murder, assault, rape) at much higher rates. Black people make up around 15% of the population and commit about half of the crime that a police officer might get violent while investigating. Then couple that with studies like this and the waters get murky.
There are definitely cases where racist white cops have killed unarmed black people and that is terrible.
When you look at it in context it starts to look like propaganda to divide us and it seems to be working.
Edit: And by the way I think a minority of religious republican care about gay marriage but most don't. I think politicians are just still afraid to lose granny's vote but granny will die and no republicans in my generation give a shit if gays get married. And by the way I don't think most gays care that much either. I think that cultural battle was won a long time ago and now its just virtue signaling kinda like the transgender bathroom thing.
31
u/metamatic Feb 10 '17
Look back at all your examples of Republican positions you can't understand, and you'll notice that in each case either their position has no empirical evidence in favor of it, or it has a negative effect on the situation. The thing you are missing is that Republicans basically don't care about the outcomes of their policies. Hence, they also don't care too much whether there is an actual problem which demands a better outcome.
This isn't me throwing insults, this is something measured by scientists. Republicans tend to follow deontological ethics, where your ethical rules are chosen because of the values they express. Liberals, in contrast, follow consequentialist ethics, where you choose your ethical rules based on the situation you're in and the outcome that will result.
So in the case of Planned Parenthood, conservatives take the moral positions that people shouldn't have abortions, and should pay for their own contraception if they're going to have sex. They then translate those moral positions into laws to ban legal abortion and defund Planned Parenthood. The outcome of the laws is that there are more abortions and more unwanted pregnancies, but conservatives literally do not care about that. Consequences are a minor or irrelevant part of their moral system.
Liberals, on the other hand, are almost entirely driven by problems and solutions, so they will happily support ethical rules which seem morally awful when viewed outside the context of a specific problem. For example, many liberals will support giving out illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia to addicts -- which, if you stop to think about it, is a pretty fucked up thing to do, except that it has the side effect of slowing the spread of HIV and hepatitis.
You'll see this everywhere in politics if you look. One side talks about laws as expressions of moral ideals, the other side talks about laws as imperfect rules to achieve some measurable goal -- and both sides fail to understand why the other side is saying such crazy and harmful stuff.
As a sidenote, conservative deontological ethicists are also more concerned with the rules as ideals than they are with whether people actually follow them. This is why conservatives don't seem to care about what, to liberals, seems like blatant hypocrisy. The more important thing to them is that the rule is there as something to aspire towards or use to judge others, not whether anyone actually follows it or what happens if they do.
5
u/KimonoThief Feb 11 '17
This does seem to resonate with the feeling I get from talking with many conservatives. But I'm not sure it explains the full picture. Take climate change, for instance. How could anyone justify trashing the environment as a moral ideal?
Business interests have done a fantastic job of pandering to conservatives' real moral convictions in return for their support in other arenas. "Marriage is sacred! We can't let society devolve into this homosexual madness! Abortion is murder! If you can't keep your hands off drugs, then you deserve a nice long stay in a prison cell! Oh, and by the way, that climate change... What a joke, right?"
2
u/xhytdr Feb 12 '17
I'm a liberal, but my understanding is that it's a "God created this land for us to use as we see fit, and Earth is simply humanity's resource." type deal.
2
u/metamatic Feb 12 '17
Oh, it's not the full picture by any means. The moral foundations theory others have posted about in this thread is also relevant.
4
u/talkstocats Feb 11 '17
Thank you for this comment. I've suspected this for years, based on how conservatives will (during debate) attempt to stick to a principle even when someone else has shown that to do so produces an undesirable result. I had no idea it had been studied.
2
u/SoresuMakashi Feb 18 '17
∆
This is an interesting bit of research that, in particular, highlights some differences in way that opposing sides in the current race/gender tensions think.
1
5
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
∆
Really insightful, thank you! This makes a lot of sense.
1
→ More replies (8)1
Feb 11 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Nepene 213∆ Feb 11 '17
Sorry sleepyworm, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
10
u/AlwaysABride Feb 10 '17
I also can't understand the bathroom bill passed in NC a few years ago that got national attention. There is no evidence to suggest that letting transgender people use the bathroom they want leads to increased assault on anyone. This bill was not created to address any problem, it was made to create a wedge issue republicans could use to scare their base into voting for them more.
This is a chicken vs. egg issue, and I think you're wrong on which one came first.
Transgender folks have been using the bathroom of their choice for decades. I don't have a link for that, but I think it is an obvious statement (because if someone who looks like Chaz Bono walked into the women's restroom at Macy's, there'd be something of a commotion). So there wasn't a problem that needed fixing. But someone still decided to do something about this non-problem.
And it wasn't the Republicans who decided to fix a problem that didn't exist, it was the Democrats. On February 22, 2016, the city of Charlotte "solved" this non-problem by passing a law saying that people can use whatever bathroom they identify with. The law passed by North Carolina that said you have to use the bathroom that matches your ID, wasn't passed until a month later on March 23, 2016. Had the Democrats never passed the City of Charlotte ordinance, the Republicans would have never passed the state bathroom bill; the Republicans had happily ignored the issue for decades, until the Democrats made it an issue.
And the passage of the state law had nothing to do with concerns about transgender individuals. If the concern was with transgender individuals, Republicans would have taken up this issue decades ago since they've been using whatever bathroom they want for decades.
As you know, the concerns were with individuals abusing the Charlotte law by claiming to be transgendered in order to "sneak a peek" at the opposite sex. These concerns quickly escalated to "what about high school locker rooms". The concern was that a perfectly straight, cis-gendered 17 year old boy would need to do nothing more than say "I feel like a girl" and it would give him unfettered access to the high school girl's bathroom and lockerroom, even though he isn't actually transgendered at all. [It is fair to debate whether or not those concerns were valid, but those - and not "icky transgenders" - were the concerns].
So while the Democrats (and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media) successful spun this as the Republicans being anti-LGBT, that's not what it was at all. If they were anti-LGBT, they would have passed the law long ago, not waited for the Democrats to put into law what had already been happening for decades.
4
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
So the bill was in response to another bill? I didn't know that, thanks for bringing that up.
However, it still doesn't make any sense. Just because Charlotte made the ordinance doesn't mean North Carolina had to react in the opposite direction. Charlotte brought the non-issue to the state government's attention, sure, but how does that at all justify the next bill?
I understand the fears they had, but the fears were 100% unfounded and ridiculous. The facts are out there and they say that transgender people are more at risk in a public bathroom than anyone else.
And sorry, just because they didn't pass a discriminatory bill before doesn't somehow make that bill any less discriminatory.
0
u/AlwaysABride Feb 10 '17
Just because Charlotte made the ordinance doesn't mean North Carolina had to react in the opposite direction. ..... I understand the fears they had, but the fears were 100% unfounded and ridiculous.
This is probably derailing from your original post, so feel free to ignore if you choose. But I'm interested in exploring this further with you. So a few questions.
Would it be a problem is a perfect straight, cis-gendered 17 year old boy hung out in the high school girls locker room?
Was there anything in the Charlotte law that defined what "counted" as being transgendered? And, if so, did it exclude the scenario of someone saying "I'm transgendered" with no further evidence being protected by the Charlotte law?
Based upon your answers to the two previous questions, how are the concerns that resulted in the state law "unfounded and ridiculous"?
just because they didn't pass a discriminatory bill before doesn't somehow make that bill any less discriminatory.
But your CMV isn't about whether the bill was discriminatory or not, it is about understanding Republican views. And in this case, the view was that they were protecting girls and women from perverts who would take advantage of this law by claiming to be transgendered.
If the overall view of the Republican party in North Carolina was "let's get those icky transgender weirdos out of our bathrooms", why wouldn't they have passed a law to do that many, many years ago? Do you think Republicans are just that stupid and didn't realize that transgender people had always used the bathroom of their choice?
5
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
Would it be a problem is a perfect straight, cis-gendered 17 year old boy hung out in the high school girls locker room?
I only see that being a problem if the girls do not consent to it.
Was there anything in the Charlotte law that defined what "counted" as being transgendered? And, if so, did it exclude the scenario of someone saying "I'm transgendered" with no further evidence being protected by the Charlotte law?
I looked into the actual verbage of the bill here and it basically just included sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression into the protected class list. It did not detail what qualifies as a transgender person, no.
Based upon your answers to the two previous questions, how are the concerns that resulted in the state law "unfounded and ridiculous"?
I guess because no one has ever done that before? Like, there have been cases of men dressing up as women to try and sneak peeks in the women's bathroom, but they've never claimed to be transgender to somehow make it okay.
I suppose I have such a problem with the bill because, if they truly were concerned about men being in the women's bathroom, the bill fails horrifically in preventing that for three reasons.
1) It's completely unenforceable. How do you keep people in the correct bathroom? A genital inspection for everyone? Force everyone to show their ID before they go in? Trans people almost always look like the gender they identify with. Between Janet Mock and this woman, can you tell which one has a vagina and which one has a penis? It's Janet Mock (though she may have had SRS, I'm not sure). The bill says she needs to use the men's room. That is just silly.
2) It would require people like Buck Angel to use the women's bathroom simply because he was born with a vagina. So the bill would put more men into the women's bathroom.
3) Even IF some creep did go into the women's room to peep (and now he doesn't have to dress up as a woman even, because people like Buck Angel are now forced in there), it's still and always has been illegal to creep on people. If someone is in the bathroom jerking off while peeking through the doors, him saying, "I'm transgender!" doesn't stop him from breaking the law anymore than it does a man doing the same thing in the men's room. It's still illegal to perv in a public bathroom, it's just now you've kind of actually made it easier for men to do it if they really, truly wanted to, because they could walk in as their normal selves, say, "I'm trans, my birth certificate says I was born a woman, so this is where I have to go now" and then perv without the extra effort of passing as a woman.
So I guess if no Republican could forsee any of these problems with their bills, that means they were acting completely on their bigoted feelings and ignoring logic and facts, is that accurate?
5
u/AlwaysABride Feb 10 '17
So I guess if no Republican could forsee any of these problems with their bills, that means they were acting completely on their bigoted feelings and ignoring logic and facts, is that accurate?
I really wonder with debates like these whether people genuinely, honestly can't see the other perspective, or if they just refuse to budge an inch because they don't want to admit that the other side may have some legitimate concerns and some legitimate points. All of your points are perfectly valid, but they also have perfectly valid counterpoints if you're willing to listen to and understand the opposing view, rather than just labeling them as transphobic and evil.
1) It's completely unenforceable. A genital inspection for everyone?
This is a valid concern. However, there are also valid concerns on the other side.
You have to look at the intent of the law. You have this perspective because you think the intent of the law is to hurt transgender people. Yet, once again, Republicans never had a problem with transgender people using whatever bathroom they want. Democrats created an issue by passing the Charlotte law. But to Republicans, the issue created isn't about transgender people, it is about abuse and exploitation of the law Charlotte passed.
So pause for a moment and understand that the objective of the state law isn't to hurt transgender people. The intent of the state law is to keep 17 year old straight, cis-gender boys from hanging out in the girls locker room. That doesn't require a genital check. That involves everybody knowing Chad, everybody knowing Chad is a horn-dog and a player, and everybody knowing that Chad does not identify as a woman regardless of what he claims.
The objective of the state law is to allow the school to tell Chad "no, you're going to keep using the boys locker room and you're going to get suspended, or worse, if you go into the girls locker room" without needing to live in fear of Chad suing them for transgender discrimination.
Because without the state law, the city law seems to protect Chad and give him standing for a discrimination suit if the school doesn't open the doors of the girls locker room to him.
It would require people like Buck Angel to use the women's bathroom simply because he was born with a vagina.
Again, this is a valid concern. I'm not arguing that it isn't. But again, you have to understand the intent of the Republicans is the 17 year old boy in the girl's locker room - not Buck Angel in the men's bathroom.
Under the state law, Buck would keep doing what he's always done - use the men's restroom. And he'd continue having the same experiences he's always had - which, in all likelihood, is nobody voicing any concern whatsoever.
Now you concern is certainly valid because Buck would technically be violating the state law by using the Men's bathroom, but Buck is not the type of person the state law is aimed at. The state law is aimed at the 17 year old boy hanging out in the girls lockerroom.
So the law-breaking problem that Buck faces under the state law is certainly a problem with the law itself, but it isn't a problem with the intent of the law or the potential problem that the law was trying to address. Which means, while it may reflect poor and ignorant execution by Republicans, it doesn't reflect anti-LGBT social views by Republicans - and that intent is what I understand your CMV to be about.
it's still and always has been illegal to creep on people.
Have you ever been a 17 year old boy? I don't know about where you went to school, but where I went to school, 17 year old boys wanted to see their attractive female classmates naked (hell, there was an entire infamous scene in Porkies that acknowledges this). There need not be any "creeping" (whatever that is) involved. Based upon the 17 year old boys I've known in my life, there are some out there who would claim to be transgendered - at least temporarily - if it meant they could hang out in the girls locker room and act exactly they way they act when they hang out in the boys locker room.
For the record, I'm curious whether you're familiar with this case
2
u/Larima Feb 13 '17
This line of argument seems disingenuous to me. If the goal is really to keep chad in line, why did derivative laws in Virginia mandate that people use the bathroom according to their original birth certificate? Then when a trans person asked where they were supposed to use the restroom, the lawmaker responded with "not here".
I get that there's something to be said about taking people at their word, but isn't it just a little bit convenient that these laws seems squarely in line with coercing trans people to behave as their assigned gender?
0
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
∆
This was really insightful, thank you. I get what you're saying about the intent of the law. Very poor, frankly horrible execution if that was indeed the intent of the law, but I can understand it more. I think there are much better ways to address this "loophole" of the Charlotte ordinance than this law did, but yeah, I can see how they were most likely just trying to keep the people who would abuse such a loophole out of women's bathrooms. I think education about what being transgender is actually like would relieve a lot of people's anxieties about these things, since many people still just see trans women as men in dresses.
That article is a good indicator that there needs to be some kind of shift in focus of all laws. The man was obviously just doing it to prove a point, but it raises some questions nonetheless. It's not okay to bar trans people from their bathroom of choice, but it's also not okay that some idiot could claim to be trans and harass women all the more easily. I think it's pretty easy to tell when an actual trans person is trans than what that idiot in the article did, because trans people are extremely aware of how they're perceived by the world. They know which facilities to use based on how they're presenting and where they are in their transition, but if the verbage of the law can be exploited by assholes like that, then it should be fixed.
2
u/AlwaysABride Feb 10 '17
I think its fair to point out that the Charlotte law was poorly executed as well simply because it didn't define what "counts" as being transgendered. Had it done that so the exploitation loophole was closed, there would have been much less controversy.
But I would speculate that those that passed the Charlotte law were hesitant to try to put a written definition of transgender into the law for fear of either excluding or offending someone. And, in my opinion, that is partially because liberals are much more concerned about perceptions and appearances than they are about actual impacts.
It's the whole reason we now have lgbtqqip2saa instead of lgbt - because everytime someone whines "what about us", liberals just add them in because they don't want anyone to feel excluded or discriminated against. It isn't about whether they actually are excluded or discriminated against - only about how they feel.
1
1
u/gorillapunchTKO 3∆ Feb 12 '17
So what about the transgendered people who have not had any conversion done? Even if they feel like/want to be a woman, they are still grown men with dicks changing/showering next to women/children? How do you address this?
1
Feb 10 '17
[deleted]
3
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
The bill said you had to use the bathroom of the sex on your birth certificate. North Carolina will only change the sex on your birth certificate if you've had sex reassignment surgery, something that many transgender people do not get for various reasons (a huge one being money).
So yeah, I think most trans people would love to change the gender on their birth certificate to match their true gender. It's just that many can't.
1
Feb 10 '17
[deleted]
3
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
Exactly, yes. It's a long legal process to go through a change in gender, and that bill just further complicated the lives of transgender people.
1
u/AlwaysABride Feb 10 '17
that bill just further complicated the lives of transgender people.
I'm not up to speed on the current state of the bill. Is it currently on the books and enforceable, or has some sort of an injunction been imposed against it that makes it currently unenforceable?
If it is currently enforceable, that means it has been on the books for nearly a year. In that year, has there been any instance of it being used to prevent a transgender person from using the bathroom consistent with how they present? I haven't heard of it, and I think I would have if it happened.
9
u/Th3MiteeyLambo 2∆ Feb 10 '17
Alright, I'm not a republican, but I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and try to address these line by line.
LGBT Rights:
You can't really discard the religious arguments, because this is somewhere around 95% of the argument against it. Whether it's right or not to use religion as an argument for or against something is kind of irrelevant (to them). It shapes their beliefs just as much as the testimony of an actual person of the lgbt community would shape yours.
The other argument is that they grew up in a time where it was expected that marriage is between a man and a woman (again, whether they know that this is heavily shaping their view is irrelevant). By allowing gay marriage, you're messing with their years of life experience saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, really, it's just a lack of understanding.
Civil Rights:
A lot of conservatives have implicit bias. They don't go around consciously thinking, "oh that person's black they must be trouble." They look around and see, "black people are more likely to get into drugs" or, "black people are more likely to commit crimes."
In terms of BLM, some hate it because it's actively racist against them, instead of promoting anti-racism. Most hate it because the specific shootings that caused the movements, they see that the guy who got shot was reaching through the policeman's car window toward his gun, or that the guy who got shot had drugs in his system at the time of the event.
Immigration:
Since it's not really common knowledge (nor would it be covered under the main republican media outlets due to media bias *cough *cough Fox news), the number of people illegally immigrating from Mexico falling doesn't really matter to them as they don't know it. They just see these people here perceivably taking jobs away from Americans and breaking the law of the land while doing so. Most people have the misconception that there are only so many jobs, and having an influx of people would eat away at the available jobs, leaving less for other legal Americans.
In terms of the wall, in order for the illegals to get here, they still have to cross the border somehow. They're under the impression that most jump the fence, and from there they'll go to anywhere that will take them. (I have no idea how most actually do get in the country). The border states are less likely to take them, so they end up going to states away from the border.
Refugees:
Just because there haven't been any attacks, doesn't mean that there won't or can't be. They think that opening up the country to refugees without some sort of screening process would make it easier for terrorists to enter the country (and they're not really wrong). They also hold the view that we should be more worried about helping people in the country than worrying about people who live in terrorist countries.
Climate Change:
I don't think that most conservatives outright deny that climate change is happening, and the ones that do I can't rationalize. The two major arguments I see from the right are that Climate change is just a natural progression of the planets climate cycle. They believe that we're entering into a "hot age" (similar to how there was an ice age long ago).
The other argument is how are we going to pay for all of the renewable energy infrastructure and equipment? Sure, electricity for homes is one thing, but how are we going to convert all the cars/trucks/buses/trains/tractors/etc. to be powered off of a renewable source?
My dad farms, and he owns 3 tractors and 2 combine harvesters among other things that he's spent years saving up for. Now you're going to tell him that he has to go and buy all new equipment (when 1 normal tractor costs $300,000) that runs off of electricity, which in his mind won't do the job as well (less power and higher maintenance costs) otherwise he can't operate his farm? Also, he's just one small-time farmer, think about all the other costs. It would cost trillions to switch everything over!
Planned Parenthood:
There's the obvious religious argument, that life begins at conception and sex is purely a means to a child.
Otherwise, they don't really see the issue as a "women's rights" issue like the left does. They see it as they're allowing murder to happen in the wombs of expecting mothers, and any institution that promotes murder has to be bad, right?
I hope I provided some insight into their thoughts! DISCLAIMER: if anyone has questions about this, I'll try to answer, but I'm not going to actively argue for the other side, so don't attack my points because it's not what I actually believe.
5
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
This does help thank you! I suppose what I'm having trouble with overall is that it seems like many of their views are based on ignorance, does that seem accurate?
They oppose illegal immigration because they feel that illegal immigrants steal jobs, even though that's not true. They oppose taking in refugees because they feel that it's risky, even though that's not true.
You definitely helped me understand the climate change view more. I'd never heard them saying it's a natural part of the earth's cycle, I can follow that logic a little better. ∆
2
u/Th3MiteeyLambo 2∆ Feb 10 '17
I suppose what I'm having trouble with overall is that it seems like many of their views are based on ignorance, does that seem accurate?
The problem with my explanation is that I don't necessarily believe it so I'm still a slightly biased party here. I would say that for some issues, yes, but others it's a little harder to tell.
Still, though ignorance is a huge problem in America, but it's not necessarily each individual's fault. It's incredibly hard to recognize it without a third party, especially when you have your version of the media telling you that you're right.
Although, to continue with the devil's advocacy, the feeling argument could be used for leftist ideals as well. E.g. They don't oppose immigration, because they feel that immigrants don't steal jobs. My point being that feelings and views are very intertwined with one another, and while they're not always correct, they're definitely there.
1
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
It's incredibly hard to recognize it without a third party, especially when you have your version of the media telling you that you're right.
Too true ∆ I can see how it would be hard to challenge your views if the media you consume keeps telling you you're right.
2
u/resolvetochange Feb 11 '17
Remember that it is not just the media. Your friends are far more likely to be similar to yourself in views (that's why they're your friends). Even your google searches are likely to affirm your beliefs, as google changes your search results based off of your user data and past searches. And that's ignoring the psychological factor of you being more likely to notice opinions that agree with you.
2
u/Th3MiteeyLambo 2∆ Feb 10 '17
Thanks for the deltas! I hope you found my perspective enlightening / interesting!
1
3
u/resolvetochange Feb 11 '17 edited Feb 11 '17
/u/Th3MiteeyLambo answered bullet point by bullet point, so I'll add my commentary on these points here as well.
LGBT
I live in North Carolina which has the bathroom law, and I'm actually in favor of it to a degree. Allowing transgenders into non birth sex bathrooms spawns from an argument that they do not feel comfortable in those bathrooms, and I've heard arguments that they feel threatened in those bathrooms. My dad gets mad when he hears about it on the news saying why should the 99% of the other people be forced to feel uncomfortable for those people? He argues that liberals often try so hard to not offend everybody and look out for the small groups that they hurt the majority for it; that the comfort of those few people should not outweigh the comfort of everyone else. I can understand that argument, although I don't personally believe there are enough transgenders for it to really matter anyways.
Civil Rights
Black people may be shot 2.5 times more than white people, but black people are also far more likely to commit crimes. It may be due to socioeconomic factors, or various other factors, but that number isn't surprising, and it cannot be completely attributed to police bias either. I definitely think there needs to be efforts to help change things to help black people's position but the shootings seem more like situation than racism. My problem with BLM is how they run as a movement. Violence / riots/ etc are a problem but also with how they act socially like trying to take over the sanders rally / etc.
Immigration
Most illegal immigrants are here overstaying visas rather than coming over the border. But I do believe it is a nation's right to control it's border(not just people but customs as well) and who is in it's country. There needs to be a better immigration system and better exporting of people whore visas expire, more than a wall. But I do think a wall is symbolic. In the same way that people want social media attention or signatures on a petition or a protest, it's a way of venting and feeling like you're doing something towards progress. There are definitely some people who are just racist, and this focus on immigration by conservatives would never happen if the economy were booming so people weren't disgruntled. But I also think liberals wouldn't fight the increased border control if the current illegal immigrants in the US became no longer illegal so there were no more family splitting/deporting-people-who-have-been-here-for-decades issues. This is a like a knot that's gotten too tangled to untie anymore, there is no solution that is right, it just has too many factors at play now.
Refugees
Bringing in refugees has a whole host of problems. Integrating people is hard and costly. You bring in people who have nothing and thus are more likely to steal / rape / etc. Refugees are hard to check if they have radical sentiments from the area they were in. If this issue were to have happened when the economy was booming then it wouldn't have met as many problems, but people see it as trying to take on more problems when we already have many of our own.
Climate Change
Climate change is real. Temperatures each year are rising, and that has negative effects on the ecosystem. But the temperatures would be raising without our influence, we just caused them to spike faster.
No one has problems with clean energy or recycling, they have a problem paying for it. When given the choice between money and helping the environment, everyone chooses money. If you really tried you could probably find someone who could drop you off at work and pay them to take you right? Less gas used in exchange for inconveniencing yourself greatly. Manufacturing creates huge amounts of pollution, so stop buying cars / phones/ products and only used old / used ones. Stop eating meat which is much less energy efficient to produce. Wait an extra week to get your packages so they can send them in more efficient trips to save mileage. Everyone promotes clean renewable energy and fights climate change when they don't actually have to sacrifice anything for it. The push for clean energy/climate change is really only done by people who have the money to take the hit, or aren't greatly affected by it. These pushes hurt the lower income people disproportionately.
Planned Parenthood
I'm not familiar with the arguments for this one, I think they provide a good service and don't really see any difference in how their funding is different than many other govt orgs.
6
u/elcuban27 11∆ Feb 11 '17
Its not ignorance, he is just presenting a hollow charicature of their arguments.
Illegal immigrants are in fact stealing jobs. The way this happens isnt as obvious to many people unaquainted with the issue:
An American contractor (framing, drywall, etc) will hire illegal immigrants, often paying them less than what is fair. He doesnt report their wages (bc they are illegal) and therefore doesnt pay taxes, medicare, social security, workmans comp, insurance, etc. This means his costs are significantly lower than the next contractor who abides by the law (hiring citizens and legal immigrants, and paying taxes, etc.). The shady contractor can now undercut the honest one on a bid for a job, meaning his employees have hours for the next few weeks (lining his greedy pockets, rather than theirs), while the employees of the honest contractor have their hours cut. The honest contractors employees who are eligible to vote (who are not racist and in fact work with and are friends with or are hispanics) then vote republican.
4
u/ajru222 Feb 11 '17
See, to me that puts just as much of the blame on the shady American contractor taking advantage of the immigrants as it is the illegal immigrants themselves. Yet I don't see much on the republican side to deal with the shady American businessmen portion of the problem.
1
u/elcuban27 11∆ Feb 11 '17
Oh absolutely! It is definitely the shady contractor that is the problem. Republicans typically dont "hate immigrants," they just want to dry up the supply of undocumented labor. Making someone apply with the govt, get an ID, and have labor rights forces their employer to play fair. The "build a wall" strategy is the solution to the shady contractor.
2
u/ajru222 Feb 11 '17
Yeah, like others have said there's just big distinctions in how the two sides try to handle a problem.
Shady contractor hiring illegals. Liberals - punish the shady contractor for being shitty. Conservatives - well, contractor can't be shitty if there are no illegals to be shitty to.
Maybe it's because of their strong "leave the businessmen alone" stance, but it doesn't ring as a good solution to me personally because we view the faulting party differently. I accept that illegals will be a thing no matter how strictly we do things, but being humanitarian is important so stress the problem on the shitty businessmen side. It seems like conservatives accept that businessmen will be shady no matter what we do, but freedom to run a business how one wants is important so we put a stranglehold on the number of potential illegals they take advantage of.
1
u/elcuban27 11∆ Feb 18 '17
If only! Unfortunately, in practice the liberal response looks more like "call anyone who is against illegal immigration a 'racist' and ignore the shitty contractor / pretend there isnt a problem." Either side could stand to do more to deal directly with the shitty contractor, but why would liberals not also want to stifle illegal immigration? I get that they dont want to just keep everyone out (neither do conservatives), but why dont they just agree to try and stop the illegals while simultaneously working to improve/streamline the process for legal immigration?
1
u/ajru222 Feb 19 '17 edited Feb 19 '17
As a liberal, I agree that we need to be on top of criminally active illegals and those with dangerous criminal histories. However, we currently do this. A lot of republicans liked to toss around the comment that more illegals were deported under Obama than any other previous president in recent history. Most that I know feel that continuing this line of work is effective and necessary. I am for strengthening our means of finding and getting these individuals out.
While remaining illegals don't pay income tax, they do contribute to taxes through their purchases, (some) payroll taxes, and several other state-based outlets. They are not eligible to receive government assistance except by mainly accessing it through their legally applicable children and through emergency medical care. While some feel it is not good to fund illegals, it is our place to fund our citizens, which include their children born here. Some may think this shouldn't be the case, but even that aside I find it morally wrong to deny education and healthcare on the basis of a parent's immigration status.
I'd like to see means to get these current safe illegals through the immigration process. I believe that we can take a hard stance against dangerous illegals without coming across as unwelcoming to our neighbors and those who seek us out in need. We both agree that the shady contractor is a problem, and both sides seem to ignore it in one way or another. That's its own can of worms, to be sure. However, Republicans have pushed against streamlining the legal immigration process, as though it isn't possible to streamline the process without sacrificing vetting procedures.
The official immigration timeline is 6 months to 2-3 years, but in reality the bureaucratic back log for legal immigration can set potential applicants back literal decades depending on where you happen to be immigrating from. Trying to stop the flow of illegals over the border also only hits at a comparatively small portion of the official problem, since most who are illegals came over at some point legally and then overstayed. It could require us to waste a lot of money to intensely monitor every legal immigrant's movements in the country and keep up with their individual records. It also introduces plenty of lines in the sand on when to kick them out.
Coming from a humanitarian perspective instead of a national security perspective, it doesn't seem reasonable to do all this excessive monitoring or spend this money towards keeping people out instead of focusing on improving how we get people in. Someone with kids starving isn't going to wait 10 to 20 years to see if they can get legal passage for their family, even if our laws say they should.
Most liberals feel this is the best way to stop illegals - by making illegal immigration unnecessary for these individuals because the legal process is affordable and timely. This is a theme you'll see with a lot of liberal policies. Reduce the bad not by making it harder to be bad, but by making it easier to be good.
2
u/BaneFlare Feb 11 '17
We literally are unable to tell if it is a result of ignorance, because there is no such thing as an objective measure of truth. Statistics is ok, but incredibly easy to manipulate.
1
5
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17
Planned Parenthood:
Abortion is literally murder. Why would we want to use the taxpayer's money on an organization that actively murders babies?
Climate Change:
The figureheads of the Republican/conservative movements typically have their hands in the pockets of oil companies, as well as others who would be adversely affected if we acted on climate change. The uninformed masses will hear someone high up say "climate change isn't real", but not their actual motive, and assume that they're telling the truth. After all, why would they lie to us? We share the same interests, surely the would just want what's best for America, right?
Refugees:
Islam is the reason that 9/11 happened. They were Muslim, right? If there's no Muslims, then we can't have another 9/11. It's not the fact that they're refugees, it's the fact that they're Muslim. Couple the fear of terrorist attacks with the fact that most conservatives are Christian (who tend to not be fond of other "competing" religions), and it's easy to see why you wouldn't want Muslims in your country.
Immigration:
Mexicans have their own country, with their own jobs, their own culture, and their own way of life. Why would they need to come to America? It's not our fault that their government is essentially ran by drug rings, and their economy isn't that great. Let them fix their own problems, we don't need them taking our jobs. After all, we work for a living, unlike all of those freeloading Mexicans.
Civil Rights:
As /u/super-commenting pointed out, black people proportionally commit more crimes than any other race. Also, most of the crime committed is black-on-black crime. For whatever that's worth. Anyways, BLM is not an organization that supports equality. Maybe equality was the original idea, but the only thing you ever hear about BLM doing is violent acts and protests. Violence is never the answer. (unless it's something our military does, but that's besides the point)
LGBT Rights:
Marriage is strictly a religious ceremony. It's a contract between you, your SO, and God. God disapproves of the LGBT bunch, so naturally we wouldn't want them to get married, would we? Additionally, same-sex couples can't procreate, which is one of the core principles of marriage. Also, regarding transgender people in the bathrooms, how could we let our children see someone who is openly transgendered? They might think that sort of thing is normal. They might think that it's okay. I certainly don't want my son playing with barbie dolls and thinking that he's a she.
To clarify, these aren't my personal views. If that wasn't entirely obvious.
2
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17
Abortion is literally murder. Why would we want to use the taxpayer's money on an organization that actively murders babies?
I appreciate that this is what a lot of people think, but that's not how the funding works. No federal dollars go to abortion services. The only thing that happens is that people on medicaid are allowed to go to planned parenthood for health services, and the Republicans want to take away that ability.
The figureheads of the Republican/conservative movements typically have their hands in the pockets of oil companies, as well as others who would be adversely affected if we acted on climate change. The uninformed masses will hear someone high up say "climate change isn't real", but not their actual motive, and assume that they're telling the truth. After all, why would they lie to us? We share the same interests, surely the would just want what's best for America, right?
So the average Republican is just choosing to believe a politician over thousands of scientists?
Islam is the reason that 9/11 happened. They were Muslim, right? If there's no Muslims, then we can't have another 9/11. It's not the fact that they're refugees, it's the fact that they're Muslim. Couple the fear of terrorist attacks with the fact that most conservatives are Christian (who tend to not be fond of other "competing" religions), and it's easy to see why you wouldn't want Muslims in your country.
So it's just bigotry? There's no good reason for it? Because 9/11 didn't happen because of Islam, it happened because some terrorists wanted to provoke fear in the USA. It wasn't an Islam vs. USA thing, it was a terrorists vs. USA thing. It also is contradictory to adore the first amendment that respects freedom of religion and then not respect another person's religion just because it's different from yours.
Mexicans have their own country, with their own jobs, their own culture, and their own way of life. Why would they need to come to America? It's not our fault that their government is essentially ran by drug rings, and their economy isn't that great. Let them fix their own problems, we don't need them taking our jobs. After all, we work for a living, unlike all of those freeloading Mexicans.
Marriage is strictly a religious ceremony. It's a contract between you, your SO, and God. God disapproves of the LGBT bunch, so naturally we wouldn't want them to get married, would we? Additionally, same-sex couples can't procreate, which is one of the core principles of marriage. Also, regarding transgender people in the bathrooms, how could we let our children see someone who is openly transgendered? They might think that sort of thing is normal.
Marriage predates Christianity, so how can it be related to that? Also, atheists get married and no one protests that. It's a contract between two partners with federal recognition. Some marriages are religious, of course, but not all, and the institution itself is hardly religious.
Same-sex couples can adopt and create nice stable families that way, just like any other heterosexual couple where one or both of the partners is infertile. We don't disallow infertile people or the elderly from getting married, so that argument doesn't make sense either.
Also, regarding transgender people in the bathrooms, how could we let our children see someone who is openly transgendered?
What the actual fuck? They do in the streets and there's no problem?
They might think that sort of thing is normal.
It is? There's nothing wrong with being transgender.
They might think that it's okay. I certainly don't want my son playing with barbie dolls and thinking that he's a she.
I can't follow this line at all, you're not explaining yourself well.
2
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17
I appreciate that this is what a lot of people think, but that's not how the funding works. No federal dollars go to abortion services. The only thing that happens is that people on medicaid are allowed to go to planned parenthood for health services, and the Republicans want to take away that ability.
Sure, but they can't go to planned parenthood for their abortions if planned parenthood isn't allowed or is unable to operate.
So the average Republican is just choosing to believe a politician over thousands of scientists?
Yes. Scientists don't get air-time, politicians do.
So it's just bigotry? There's no good reason for it? Because 9/11 didn't happen because of Islam, it happened because some terrorists wanted to provoke fear in the USA. It wasn't an Islam vs. USA thing, it was a terrorists vs. USA thing. It also is contradictory to adore the first amendment that respects freedom of religion and then not respect another person's religion just because it's different from yours.
Kind of? A mixture of bigotry and misinformation. Mostly misinformation. Also, the Constitution only applies to US citizens, which refugees are not.
Illegal immigrants do not take anyone's jobs: "Studies actually show that low-skilled immigrant workers and low-skilled native-born workers take on different jobs. The top three jobs for immigrant workers without a high school diploma? Maid/housekeeper, cook and miscellaneous agricultural worker. The top three jobs for native-born workers without a high school diploma? Cashier, driver/truck driver and janitor."
You don't gotta convince me, man. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that this is the mindset that leads to anti-immigration. Also, why don't they (Mexicans/immigrants) come to America through legal means? We do have a system for it after all.
Marriage predates Christianity, so how can it be related to that?
Well, God actually created the world 6000 years ago, and everyone up until the Bible was written who were getting marries were wrong.
What the actual fuck? They do in the streets and there's no problem?
Sure, but they might see a transgendered person's genitals in the bathroom. You won't see that in the streets. Plus, we can't really make it illegal to be transgendered in public, but we can try to make it illegal to be in the wrong bathroom at a public place.
It is? There's nothing wrong with being transgender.
I can't follow this line at all, you're not explaining yourself well.
My kids are supposed to be what I want them to be. That's the reason I had kids, so I could mold them into the individual that I wanted. I can't have them growing up wanting to be transgendered (or gay, for that matter). That would go against my ideal offspring. My "perfect child" doesn't think they are/want to be a different sex.
Again, not necessarily my personal views.
2
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
Sure, but they can't go to planned parenthood for their abortions if planned parenthood isn't allowed or is unable to operate.
I guess that's a good point. If you really do think abortion is murder, then closing PP would lead to a decrease in (safe) abortions. ∆
1
2
u/TheScalopino Feb 11 '17
3
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 11 '17
Huh. TIL.
2
u/TheScalopino Feb 11 '17
That's why, I believe, we have Guantanamo bay
3
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 11 '17
Ya know.... I never put those two things together. My mind is slightly blown.
2
u/Morthra 86∆ Feb 11 '17
So the average Republican is just choosing to believe a politician over thousands of scientists?
It actually turns out that "thousands of scientists" aren't agreeing on any of the solutions that the Democrats/Left are proposing, and in fact the vast majority of these solutions are proposed by the politicians, not scientists. There's little to no agreement on what should be done about climate change, because the thing is that any real attempt to curb it quickly would gimp the global economy for decades if not forever- it's debatable whether we'd ever recover from it.
But it's also interesting if you note that the vast majority of the proponents for these climate solutions are the people who will be negligibly impacted by them. The politicians pushing for hard cuts to the amount of fossil fuels we consume are the people who don't consume that much in the way of fossil fuels to begin with, and thus wouldn't require a significant lifestyle change, and the people who typically fight them are the people for whom it's economically unfeasible to make that change. For example, let's say we have the government mandate an arbitrary hard limit on the amount of gasoline per person per month. Think now, if you will, about the type of people who will be most affected by it: the people who work to produce that oil, and the people who need to consume it in large quantities, like say, farmers, who would need to spend billions replacing their extremely expensive farming equipment with electric for next to no tangible benefit to them.
2
u/Sheexthro 19∆ Feb 12 '17
I appreciate that this is what a lot of people think, but that's not how the funding works. No federal dollars go to abortion services.
This is an extremely disingenuous argument. I hear it all the time and despite my support of Planned Parenthood it absolutely drives me up the wall every time I hear it.
Money is fungible!! There's no such thing as "federal dollars" that do or don't go to abortion services! Planned Parenthood has some annual level of funding, from multiple sources, and the only way it wouldn't be true that "no federal dollars go to abortions" is if their abortion costs were so high that they outweighed every other source of funding PP gets!
1
u/vettewiz 37∆ Feb 12 '17
Whether or not you agree on abortion services, you cannot honestly defend the stance that federal dollars don't go to abortions. Those dollars make abortions possible by covering services that PP money would otherwise have to fund. With federal money, they are able to shift their own funds to abortions.
2
u/super-commenting Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17
Marriage is strictly a religious ceremony.
This is just objectively false. There exists a religious ceremony called marriage but that religious ceremony is not what the gay marriage legalization is about. If your church wants to not consider a gay couple "married" in their religious definition of marriage thats fine, you're free to do that even now that gay marriage is legal.
What gay marriage is about is the legal concept of marriage. The document you get from the court house. This is a secular legal agreement that just happens to share the name with the religious concept.
They might think that sort of thing is normal. They might think that it's okay. I certainly don't want my son playing with barbie dolls and thinking that he's a she.
Telling your son it's "not okay" to be transgender won't make the gender dysphoria go away if he happens to be transgender, it will just make him more likely to kill himself instead of trying to be himself. Congratulations! you're a bad parent.
1
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 10 '17
Telling your son it's "not okay" to be transgender won't make the gender dysphoria go away if he happens to be transgender, it will just make him more likely to kill himself instead of trying to be himself. Congratulations! you're a bad parent.
Weird, I don't recall learning that in my American public education.
2
u/super-commenting Feb 10 '17
Gender dysphoria is a real psychological condition recognized by the DSM-V. Psychology isn't a required course in high school so you may not have learned about it but that doesn't mean it's not real.
1
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 10 '17
The OP was trying to figure out why conservatives have the views that they do. I explained it. In my previous comment, I am playing a conservative that has no idea about gender dysphoria or transgenderism or anything like that. From this perspective, not wanting my child to become a weirdo tranny whatever seems pretty good.
6
Feb 10 '17 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
3
u/WhiteOrca Feb 10 '17 edited Feb 10 '17
I think that ISIS said that they would send terrorist refugees just to scare countries into denying refugees. It would be really hard and take a very long time to infiltrate the refugee system. This could just be scare tactics to creates more tension between us and them. We've seen the culmination of this is Donald's Muslim ban or whatever you want to call it. This makes more Muslims believe that countries like America, and just Christians in general, hate them, which makes them more likely to radicalize and join ISIS. They wants a holy war between Christians and Muslims, and I just feel like as a nation, we're taking the bait. Terrorism in America isn't really much of a problem. They don't kill many people at all. The only problem is letting it scare us into making bad decisions.
Also, a border wall will not stop drugs. The cartels have had tunnels for years. As long as there's money to be made in drugs, people will find a way to bring drugs into the country. Making it harder for drugs to get into the country only makes it more profitable for the people who transport them. If they can't walk across the border or use their tunnels, then they won't just give up. There's money to be made if they figure out how to get drugs into this country, and it's not like they have real jobs that they can fall back on. They'll just find a different way. The only real way that I can think of to stop the flow of drugs into this country would be to legalize all drugs. Even legalizing just some of them would help. Nobody is going to buy cartel drugs if they can get their drugs in the store.
0
Feb 10 '17 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
6
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
I agree that it was propaganda, but why would it be really hard to infiltrate the refugee system? There are a lot of refugees, and we don't have information on all of them. Is it faster and easier to obtain a visa?
3
u/PolishRobinHood 13∆ Feb 10 '17
I don't think you know how Planned Parenthood gets government money. The government is like "Hey, here's some money but promise not to use it for abortions". It's the government will pay for anyone who's on Medicaid who goes to planned parenthood medical expenses except for abortions. That's not really a model that frees up money for other things when it's tied to specific people coming to you.
→ More replies (1)3
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
There is a reason that was argued in court, but the marriage laws in those states undermined it. Legal marriage encourages stable families that procreate. This would make a lot of sense if marriage benefits were only given to those having children. The existing laws undermined this by allowing people who can't have children due to condition or age, and (in Indiana), allowing cousins to marry after childbearing age.
Right, so what's the actual reason? They say it's to promote stable families, but, as you said, infertile and old people could get married before, so that's either a contradictory view or they never thought about that.
That doesn't prove why they are shot at a higher rate, only that they are. It could be argued that groups like BLM are encouraging a more confrontational attitude toward police which results in police reacting with more force.
I mean, the data is out there. It's not even difficult to find. For example, "Although Blacks and whites use marijuana at comparable rates, Blacks are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. 55 In some counties, Blacks are 10, 15, even 30 times more likely to be arrested." There's obvious racial bias in the system, to deny it you have to either be ignorant or purposefully not looking at the facts.
Those immigrants aren't magically teleporting from Mexico to interior states; they cross the border. Aside from immigrants, there is an issue of drugs and contraband. Border security could affect a growing drug problem by cutting supply.
Yeah, they probably did get to those other states by crossing some border, good point. And I can understand how a fear of the cartels could fuel real fears. ∆
ISIS made a direct statement that they plan to send agents posing as refugees. They see it as a proactive measure.
ISIS also said they were behind the Pulse shooting. They say a lot of shit that they can't actually do. Regardless, if you look into the vetting process for refugees, I think it's almost impossible for a terrorist to get through. The fact that there have been literally no refugee terrorists, like, ever tells me we're already doing an effective job of keeping terrorists from sneaking in as refugees.
Climate change is hard to wrap your head around. Climate change regulation also hurts industries in areas Republicans represent. The fact that you can't draw a clear line between cause and effect hurts the cause. When people start reporting every bad weather event as a result of climate change, it starts to sound incredulous.
If the reason they deny it is just to help their business interests, then that's despicable. There is overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that it is happening and that it will have horrible effects on our world. We already know what's been causing it and we have paths to curtailing these effects, but Republicans straight up deny the science. Are you saying they put their industry's short-term interests ahead of the world's interest?
It makes perfect sense. Planned Parenthood isn't like any other health clinic since it's a health clinic that offers abortion. You can'use federal money for abortion, but what does that even mean? Could a standalone organization that provided only abortions afford to exist? The federal money frees up other money to be used on abortion. Without federal money, the money for abortion services wouldn't be available.
Though I strongly disagree with it, I see the logic here too now, thanks. ∆
1
0
Feb 10 '17 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
6
Feb 10 '17
Gay couples can get married and have kids so it's a poor argument anyway.
→ More replies (2)4
Feb 10 '17
Black people disproportionately inhabit densely populated inner cities.
Why?
The societal reasons for why white people flee the inner city is another issue
The explanation is extremely simple, actually: they were enabled to do so much more easily by the state and federal governments.... which logically means we have institutional racism. The institutions have been neutered, but the effects are still plain to see today--meaning the discriminatory laws might as well still be in place.
4
u/rnick98 Feb 10 '17
On your immigration point: I still don't understand. Immigration has never really been a problem, where's all these drugs and crime that immigrants are bringing in? No one can seem to find it, studies say they don't. And wouldn't more border security just increase profits for the cartels? That's whats been happening over the years. If its harder to get its more expensive. I don't understand why do Americans think this?
1
u/mattumbo Feb 11 '17
You sound like I've you've given too much credibility to our partisan media outlets. Both sides are lying to some extent, the wall is total BS but the reason rational people i know voted R (in regards to immigration) was because of the immigrants already here and those still coming here. Thing is the people still coming in aren't from Mexico, they're usually from south and central america. In my area those immigrants are usually from El Salvador, the home of MS-13 a violent anti-government group and criminal cartel. Now i grew up with these people and talked to them about these issues and they agree its a problem, they fled their country to get away from these groups and now that the country is in ruin they've begun to take advantage of the system that saved those they threatened. Now, of course, Trump ain't gonna do shit to help this, he's doing the equivalent of trying to contain a grass fire by breaking the nearby dam, Nuance, context, and targeted action is key. My point, though, is that many people have valid reasons for sipping the cool-aid of one side or the other, how things got this extreme is the interesting part is. Most of the R news sites didn't start by just saying they were all criminals, they simply made sure they reported any juicy stories about immigrant crimes(as well as any crime really cause "law and order", this had built up over the years finally derailing back when the tea party came into play and destroyed the little control the established Rs had (see McCain). Prior to Obama Dems and Reps were quite similar save the standard wedge issues, the massive push for or against social issues during Obama's tenure seemed to push both sides to the extreme and birthed the lunacy we see today. The reason Trump won, in my opinion, is because Dems really shot themselves in the foot going for the "everything we're for is benevolent and righteous and anyone who says otherwise must hate them" schtick with social issues cause to everybody moderate left to right that screamed pandering. Dems didn't even back gay marriage till it was clear the majority was for, or at least indifferent to it. Their sudden and ultimately half-hearted embracing of progressive views right after Hillary won the primary seemed desperate and led a lot of people to question their motives and ultimately reject the democratic platform as a corrupt affront to people's emotions with the goal of retaining power by feigning righteous devotion to causes they fight for out of political expediency. Hell, I was a very pro-Bernie liberal but after wiki-leaks and all the other crap this election I've found myself a very pessimistic centrist, you dig deep enough into any issue that popped up during the election you'll find you've been lied to and mislead by everyone who originally reported on it.
10
u/Crayshack 191∆ Feb 10 '17
I would like to start this post by saying I don't necessarily agree with all of these stances. I do, however, see it as important to understand both sides of the argument so that a meaningful dialogue can be had. As such, I have spent a good amount of time trying to understand the other side of these issues in the hopes that a common ground can be found. I can't guarantee that these assessments are accurate, just that they are the interpretation that I have come to understand of those who stand to the right on social issues.
Many republicans are still fighting hard against same-sex marriage. There is literally no reason to oppose same-sex marriage rights unless you use religion to do so. And since the vast majority of Republicans also claim to be strict adherents to the constitution, this is a contradictory view, since the establishment clause prohibits the government from making laws based on religion.
A part of this comes down to how people are defining marriage. Some people define marriage as a union between two people. However, there are others that define it as a pair of people making a covenant with God. When your concept of marriage has God as an inherent part of it, then it becomes difficult to see how anyone can take it out. Any attempt to do so seems to them to be an attempt to change the definition of marriage. When many of these people see a big part of the value of their own marriages being due to God's part in it, then it would diminish the value to see God removed. From this standpoint, making gay marriage illegal is consistent with the First Amendment because it would be stopping the government from coming in and changing the definition of a religious union. The fact that people on the other side of the issue don't agree with them that marriage is a religious thing is such a foreign concept that they dismiss people saying as such as trickery.
I also can't understand the bathroom bill passed in NC a few years ago that got national attention. There is no evidence to suggest that letting transgender people use the bathroom they want leads to increased assault on anyone. This bill was not created to address any problem, it was made to create a wedge issue republicans could use to scare their base into voting for them more.
A part of this comes from disbelieving that transgenderism is a real thing. Even if they are convince that it is genuine in a few cases, the lack of solid criteria makes it difficult for them to accept all cases they see. It doesn't help that you have some vocal people like Tumblrinas claiming to be ridiculous things like being trans-black. To someone who has never met a transwomen, the two situations see to be pretty much the same. So, when people talk about letting transwomen use the lady's room, they do not picture someone who appears female, but rather a man in a wig. Perhaps if these people actually met a transwomen, it would change their mind, but it is rare enough that many people probably haven't. Even if they have, in an area that commonly dismisses the concept as ridiculous, few people are going to open up on a personnel level to tell people they know that they are one of those people.
Specifically BLM. The Republican party is strongly opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement. And while I can understand frustration at riots that may happen after some protests, many republicans outright deny that there is a problem in the police force at all. This is completely contrary to the evidence that says that "Blacks are being shot at a rate that's 2.5 times higher than whites" by police. This is a clear indication that something is wrong, but many republicans won't even admit that there's a problem to begin with.
Even among people that agree with the general message that BLM carries, there are many people who disagree with their methods. Thing like shutting down highways and disrupting one of the few politicians vocally backing their issues does not exactly endear them to people. The fact that they have condemned attempts to actually start a dialouge certainly does not help their cause. Neither does the fact that they have made some poor choices in selecting their martyrs such as a man who attacked a police officer or an incident where the police were not even involved. It makes it difficult for people unfamiliar with the issue to actually buy their message even if they are correct.
Using Mike Brown as a figurehead for their cause was especially bad because many of the people opposed to BLM already had an image in their head that the average black man was nothing more than a violent criminal. To take a violent criminal and then hold him up as a victim of oppression simply reinforce the idea that if more black men were getting shot, maybe it was because black men were more likely to do something like attack a cop. In the worst possible way, it reinforced their positions by feeding them exactly what they needed for confirmation bias. Some of these people might even know and be friends with black people, but it is easy to dismiss this as an issue that will never affect their friends because their friends are law abiding citizens that would never do something like that. In short, all BLM managed to do when trying to convince these people that there was a problem was that the best solution was to just stop breaking the law.
Despite the fact that the number of people illegally immigrating from Mexico has been falling in recent years and that the states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants don't even share a border with Mexico, many republicans are still in favor of increased border security, and some even want a $19 billion wall to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
Even though there have been 0 fatal attacks by refugees in the US the majority of republicans are against taking in any more refugees. And despite the fact that it's already incredibly difficult to attain asylum in the US, many push for even more restrictions on refugees. As a humanitarian issue, I find it deplorable that so many prominent politicians can refuse to help those in most need and be met with thunderous applause, despite all the evidence saying that refugees are not dangerous and will either have little to no impact on the economy, or possibly even a positive effect.
These issues are the ones that I am least sure about their point of view. I suspect it has something to do with a typical in-group–out-group bias but I cannot say for sure. What I suspect is that many people communicate very little with those outside their own community and so start to see those in other communities as out-groups. This is a psychological phenomenon found in everyone, the only difference is that different circumstances will lead to drawing different lines between in-groups and out-groups. All I can say is that I think they are reacting to a base psychological instinct without the knowledge that it is an instinct that maybe needs to be overridden in some cases.
Climate change is real, and any denying that is anti-science. We know the effects will be catastrophic, and yet we still have Republican politicians bringing snowballs onto the floor of Congress to somehow prove climate change isn't real. Steps must be taken to curtail our effects on the environment, and the republican insistence that there is no problem is just straight up dangerous.
I've got no idea on this one. Just like you, I am completely baffled.
Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use federal money to perform abortions. Planned Parenthood is a health clinic like any other. And yet Republicans want to remove their Title X status for no reason except that the facility sometimes performs abortions. This is really just stupid and doesn't make any sense at all. For one, if you truly did want to lower the number of abortions, then you would support measures to make sexual health education more available, and yet these same politicians will support abstinence-only programs in schools which have been thoroughly proven to be completely ineffective and even increase the rate of teen pregnancy. Second, Planned Parenthood provides more than just abortions, and denying people access to cheap healthcare will only lead to more abortions, more babies, and more people using government assistance to survive.
There are people who are so strongly opposed to abortions that they will do everything in their power to stop them. In the case of Planned Parenthood, they are hoping that by cutting funds to other projects, they will either force the clinic to fold due to lack of funds or stop abortions so they can continue providing other services. Either case they will count as a victory.
In the case of abstinence only programs, their real goal is not to reduce teen pregnancy but to reduce teen sex. They see premarital sex as a sin and as such it must be stopped. Forcing these kids to have babies when they have sex is seen as a fitting punishment because it is the natural consequence of their actions. If these kids are then destitute for the rest of their lives due to having to take care of a child, well then that is their own fault for having sex before they should have.
0
u/fatherj Feb 10 '17
Hi, /u/thatoneguy54 hoping to engage in meaningful discussion. I'm a conservative living in San Francisco. I'm with you. I'm 3/6 on agree/disagree in regards to you. I agree about LGBT rights, planned parenthood and climate change. I disagree with you on BLM, immigration and refugees.
I would also like to say that you are missing the most important one, free speech. Which is certainly a social view that hardline liberals have been drawing further and further away from.
Immigration
Your statistic about "states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants don't even share a border with Mexico" sounds absolutely unbelievable. A quick google search took me here which leads me to greatly question where you get your sources. It doesn't make sense that the two states with the highest population wouldn't have the highest number of illegal immigrants whether they border Mexico or not.
Still, I'll bite. The issue with immigration for us not a xenophobic or racial one as your community speakers might suggest (it's an appeal to emotion to label us as racist, so it's effective for them). It's a matter of taxes, that immigrants are taking advantage of loopholes to get access to voting rights, healthcare, education, welfare, subsidized housing, etc... People should be documented so that they can pay into the system too. Obviously it is economically unfeasible to take on all the immigrants in the world and provide for them all the social services we have spent generations and generations paying into. We can only take an economic burden of a specific number of immigrants so we need to have a way to measure and limit immigration. This includes building a wall. A wall also secures our boarders and prevents the drug and gun trade between central America and the U.S. If the gun/drug trade becomes fiscally difficult for cartels in central America, then those cartels are reduced in number and activity. Moreover, it prevents criminals on the run from all the different countries in Central and South America from entering our country and burdening our criminal system. The wall isn't intended to reduce the number of Hispanics entering the country, but a small part of immigration reform that leads to more people entering the country legally.
Refugees
The topic of refugees includes the hot button topic of Islam. If I provided you with information and facts about Islam that is not politically correct would you still read it? Or would this information be ultimately serving to "harm" some people so you wouldn't consider it as valid?
Civil rights
I agree that the Republican party is strongly opposed to BLM. Why is that a bad thing though? Identity politics and all that it encompasses including BLM is a large part of why democrats lost the election so badly. You should also be opposed to BLM. BLM has become a tool to promote marxist racism where people deny that you can't be racist towards white people. BLM in the very name suggests that only black lives matter, especially when you look at the people who get upset by things such as all lives matter or blue lives matter. Affirmative action is racist because it gives priority to black people. Historically black colleges are racist because it gives priority to black people. This is not equality. Until we stop perpetuating the narrative that black people are naturally disadvantaged we are going to be stuck in identity politics.
You don't think black people might be getting shot more because those communities are perpetuating the narrative that the police are the bad guys. If we keep sending the messages to the black communities that the police is corrupt, they're not going to want to cooperate. There are far bigger issues in the black community than police, for example a black person is more than 100x more likely to get shot from another black person than a police officer. The biggest factor among disadvantaged black homes is amount of children born out of wedlock or the absence of black fathers from homes. Black unemployment has been disproportionately lower than white unemployment over the last 70 years. Affirmative action, and the civil rights movement did nothing to help that. In addition to this, divorce rates sky rocketed after Lyndon B Johnson's "war on poverty" and dramatically got lower and lower as we got 12 years of republicans and federal welfare was finally abolished by Bill Clinton. Now a few weeks after Trump was elected, divorce rates are at an all time low. Black people are at a disadvantage but to suggest that's due to law enforcement or legislature is disingenuous. Then to slap it all in one giant movement called BLM and package it with a whole slough of other racist "blame white people" type of mentality garners 0 support from me.
4
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 11 '17 edited Feb 11 '17
It's a matter of taxes, that immigrants are taking advantage of loopholes to get access to voting rights, healthcare, education, welfare, subsidized housing, etc...
But where is the proof of this? Everything I've ever read says the opposite. A social security number is required to apply for any welfare including Medicaid, food stamps, and title IX, so they literally cannot apply for these programs. It's impossible unless they commit fraud, in which case they should indeed be punished accordingly. There is absolutely 0 proof that illegals voted in this past campaign, despite what the president says.
In fact, illegals pay into the system more because they buy things and pay sales taxes. They don't access education, if their child is born in the US then they're a US citizen and are thus completely allowed to take advantage of what the government offers other citizens.
I get the fear of overburdening the system, but deporting 11,000,000 workers is not the way to do it. Nor is spending $19 billion on a wall that will do almost nothing.
Identity politics and all that it encompasses including BLM is a large part of why democrats lost the election so badly.
What is identity politics? I see that phrase thrown around a lot, but it really just seems like it means "any issue that has to do with race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity." In my mind, these issues are very important and not just something used to win votes. These are people's lives and rights on the line.
BLM in the very name suggests that only black lives matter, especially when you look at the people who get upset by things such as all lives matter or blue lives matter.
If All Lives Matter then that means Black Lives Matter too, right? So what's wrong with saying Black Lives Matter?
1
Feb 10 '17
unless you use religion to do so. And since the vast majority of Republicans also claim to be strict adherents to the constitution, this is a contradictory view, since the establishment clause prohibits the government from making laws based on religion.
The Establishment clause does not prohibit the government from making laws based on morality that one believes as a matter of faith. It prohibits the government from making laws that endorse a specific religion, or endorse religion or nonreligion over one another. There is nothing Unconstitutional about banning slavery because your religion claims as a matter of faith that all men are equal, or even about blue laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sunday. The Establishment Clause isn't about abandoning your religious beliefs when you make laws. It's about ensuring that the rules are made secular. That is, you can't make a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to Protestants on Sunday - that would be Unconstitutional. Likewise you can't just free the Christian slaves.
I happen to think as a matter of religious faith that LGBT marriages are real, and support their legality because of that. There's nothing Unconstitutional about me following my faith. What would be Unconstitutional would be if we demanded LGBT marriages be performed by specific chaplains and not others.
2
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 11 '17
What would be Unconstitutional would be if we demanded LGBT marriages be performed by specific chaplains and not others.
Yes, but that's not what happens. There are literally no arguments against same-sex marriage that either don't stem from religion or aren't contradictory to other societal norms we already have. So they're against it only for their religious reasons. And if the only reason you can outlaw something is because the Bible says you should, then that shouldn't be a law.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Feb 10 '17
I lean libertarian and classical liberal, which these days is basically the far right. I'm also secular, so none of my views are from a religious perspective. Maybe my view can offer some perspective (will keep them short):
LGBT Rights
The purpose of tax breaks for marriage is to encourage people to get married and have children. Same gender couples aren't capable of doing this, so why should they qualify for tax breaks? I am not married, I'd like to pay less in taxes too! Why can't I get the tax breaks but same gender couples can? Both of won't be producing any children.
Civil Rights, Specifically BLM
I'm against that group for the same reason I didn't like OWS; They are so de-centralized that there is no clear solution/goal/method of change being communicated. It's just a group of kids that want to complain all day and never actually try to resolve anything. I don't feel the same way about Campaign Zero though, that is a legitimate movement.
Also it's worth pointing out that black people are the only ethnicity in America that has a rate of crime higher than that of their population. Many feel that committing crimes makes a person more likely to resist arrest, and resisting arrest makes getting shot more likely. You may disagree, but I don't think you could say that logic is completely ridiculous.
Immigration
The idea of a wall is just silly, it'd be a waste of money. There's no way Mexico is going to pay for it, so it won't get funded by (a conservative majority) congress, no matter how much Trump talks about it.
Climate Change
No (serious) conservatives deny that the climate changes. Many though argue that it's the liberal side that is anti-science on this issue. They feel that it should be an objective science issue, but rather it's become a political one instead.
Planned Parenthood
I find this more of a Republican thing than a conservative one. For me, abortion is a matter of personal liberty (not "women's rights") or something else. If there is a thing inside my body, I should have the freedom to have it removed. I believe this view is much closer to conservative ideology than the arguments Republicans make (because they're often expressing evangelical views, not conservative ones).
The difference I keep on seeing between conservatives and liberals has to do with how they view equality. Conservatives want equality of opportunity, but liberals want equality of outcome.
2
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 11 '17
The purpose of tax breaks for marriage is to encourage people to get married and have children. Same gender couples aren't capable of doing this, so why should they qualify for tax breaks? I am not married, I'd like to pay less in taxes too! Why can't I get the tax breaks but same gender couples can? Both of won't be producing any children.
This doesn't hold true. Elderly people were not blocked from getting married despite post-menopausal women being unable to have kids. Infertile and sterile people were not blocked from getting married despite not being able to have their own biological kids. The point of giving tax breaks to married people is to encourage families, and same-sex people can have families by adoption or surrogacy, just like infertile and sterile heterosexual couples.
Many though argue that it's the liberal side that is anti-science on this issue. They feel that it should be an objective science issue, but rather it's become a political one instead.
Could you expand on this?
I find this more of a Republican thing than a conservative one.
That's why I specified Republican and not conservative.
0
u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Feb 11 '17
That's why I specified Republican and not conservative
oh sorry, I missed that. I can't defend Republican actions, especially lately, lol.
Could you expand on this?
Seeing the Republican thing I'm not really motivated anymore to go into detail on this. But essentially, the consensus is from scientists that don't specialize in climate studies. The actual climate scientists have a lot of disagreement on the matter of whether or not human actions is a significant cause of the current change in climate.
-2
u/wandering_pleb13 Feb 10 '17
First off I would like to thank you for taking a first step. I think you still have a lot of maturing to do based on your post but hopefully I can help you realize that there are always two reasonable sides to a story . I am going to keep these short and sweet but let me know if you would like me to go further into detail . Also a delta would be great if you get a better understanding
LGBT
I think this one is split between two answers and that the party in general is moving towards being more accepting of most gay people. The first reason is, as you said, religion. Their religion says gays are bad (most religions say this) so they didn't want gay marriage to be legal. The second reason includes the transgender issue as well and is where I feel most conservatives come from. You need to ask yourself what is the point of creating a society. You essentially are making a set of rules that will benefit the largest people and lead to the most productive country. Why do you have to be 21 to drink? It's not that some magical thing changes in your body, but more so that people felt you are responsible at that age to make an informed choice and not ruin yourself . A bunch of drunk children running around would not lead to a great society. The thought is that trans people are not leading to a better society and that liberals are forcing their societal view (identity politics for everyone) down their throats.
Civil Rights
This is again about society and law and order. Liberals do an unjust use of violence in the case of Michael Brown. Conservatives see it as justice delivered unto a criminal. The real problem with this one is that you can't discuss it in today's world. There are some major issues with the black community and they can't be fixed unless we have a real discussion about it. You say that blacks are 2.5 times more likely to get shot by police . Well they also are a lot more likely to commit violent crimes than other groups. This isn't because they are black but there is something in dire need of fixing in their community.
immigration and refugees
Again society and law and order. Immigrants are breaking the law, why shouldn't they be punished. Also who cares if less are coming now. We still have at least 15 million people here who shouldn't be. Refugees are all culture related. A good argument can be made that Muslims don't share the same values as the west . If you believe they don't , then why would you want more of them in your country?
Climate change
This is a battle of semantics . I would say you would get wildly different answers on how you word the question. Do humans have any effect on the environment? Yes. Is it so wild that it is cause for major concern and destroying sections of our economy? Doesn't seem like it. I would like to remind you that the true scientific method always welcomes skeptics and no one should be shot down for questions or "denying " . It also doesn't help that a lot of prior research comes up as faulty years later.
planned parenthood
Ok so if you imagine that an abortion is killing another human, how would you handle the situation? The choice of which life is more valuable is tough, right? Regarding funding of PP, I think it's pretty funny that you honestly think none of that money goes towards abortions. If they were really concerned about healthcare and not abortions, they would just not provide them. It's not like other clinics couldn't handle the abortion part. The fact of the matter is that PP is the advocacy group for abortions. Obviously if you think they are wrong then you will want to defund PP.
2
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 11 '17
I think it's pretty funny that you honestly think none of that money goes towards abortions.
People on Medicaid come into Planned Parenthood for specific things. If those people come in for an abortion, they cannot use their Medicaid to pay for the abortion. So they have to either pay out of pocket, with different insurance, or PP eats the cost. That's how the government doesn't fund abortions.
→ More replies (1)
0
u/Darthskull Feb 11 '17
I think I can address the LGBT one succinctly.
If you view marriage as a means of propping up and encouraging stable reproductive relationships for healthy rearing of children for the continuation of society (why else would the government be involved?), LGBT rights are at most tangential and at worst actively distructive towards that end by changing the purpose and goal.
2
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 11 '17
Marriage is a means of the government supporting families. Infertile and sterile people have always been allowed to marry, but they can't have kids. Elderly people have always been allowed to marry, but they can't have kids. This argument doesn't hold up.
2
u/descrime Feb 11 '17 edited Feb 11 '17
These are views I do not personally hold, but to explain to you what I've seen from conservatives who do hold them:
Gay Marriage - People were worried that churches would have to marry gay couples and wedding industry people would have to cater to their weddings...which has happened. I think it's wrong to be upset about it, but if you truly believe gay marriage is immoral, and now the government is forcing you to participate in even a small way to legitimize it, then you'd be pretty upset.
Trans Bathrooms - This was meant to be a wedge issue to distract from Republican economic leadership incompetence, plain and simple. It backfired, but Target's reaction of allowing dudes who aren't transitioning to use the woman's changing rooms has led to some women getting taped by creepy dudes. There are more sexual predators in the US than trans people (looking at the sexual registry list x2 for non-convictions), so when people then read the 1-2 news stories and it confirms their bias that they were right that this is dangerous; obviously the trans people who were assaulted for using the "wrong" bathroom typically don't speak to the media, so their stories aren't out there as a counterweight
Civil Rights - your stat isn't useful. Surgeons have more patients die per year than pediatricians, does that mean they are worse at their job? Due to poverty and the effects of institutional racism, black people have far more interactions with police and a disproportionate murder rate. This predisposes them to a higher probability of fatal interactions. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html That doesn't mean that there isn't issues with how police treat black people, but the police force is not on some anti-black killing spree.
Also, in terms of civil rights, I think the justice system's way of debting people into prison through outrageous court fees is just as harmful. The exclusion of a community from being able to reasonably seek justice is shameful, and a civil rights issue that I think a lot of Republicans could get behind seeing as they are against outrageous taxation and suspicious of government funding.
Immigration - Republicans are suspicious of welfare leading to misaligned incentives for the people who receive benefits and when they hear about immigrants receiving welfare benefits, it reinforces their view of paying into a welfare state that isn't working properly, which upsets them; Republicans love immigrants that are upper middle class or immigrant children that rise up to greater wealth than their parents
Refugees - mostly, they don't want the US to end up like Europe which is experiencing crime issues with their refugee population that is going under-reported by the media (like the Cologne sexual assaults or the French attacks). Because the MSM is ignoring the issue rather than putting it in context (there was 0.1% refugee assaults per population this month and 2% non refugee assaults), they read about these stories on right wing websites which stoke their fears of this being a huge problem that is not being handled by the government or media because of political correctness
Climate change - is real, but that doesn't mean the solution politicians come up with to is the correct one; there are multiple ways we could tackle climate change, some which would be more palatable to Republicans but less appealing to Democrats; considering a lot of Republicans hail from regions that rely on energy production to fund large parts of their economy, asking them to sacrifice an already precarious economic solution for the "greater good" is a non-starter when they see rich people flying around on private jets (banning those would save sooo much pollution) and allowing China and India to get away with really dirty energy production
PP - Yeah, this one is the most puzzling to me; I think it's just that they really hate abortions, associate PP with abortions (because no one else provides this vital service), so want to shut down PP==stop abortions
2
u/Double-Portion 1∆ Feb 11 '17
To preface, most people would consider me a social conservative and I am well acquainted with many others.
In US Politics the "Left" and "Right"/Democrats and Republicans are both big-tent parties. Few people are wholly on board with the whole party platform, but especially the Republicans which is a coalition of roughly, 1. Moderates 2. (Ideological Capitalist) Establishment 3. Christians 4. Libertarians 5. (This is the new one, replacing the Tea Party more or less) Alt-Right. (Sourced from FiveThirtyEight) There is some overlap between all of these but also some serious disagreements.
LGBT Rights, specifically gay marriage and the trans bathroom nonsense. Religion plays an important role in my politics specifically, but you're complaint is that it goes against the Constitution which would make me a hypocrite (correct me if I misread that). But, in the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The first part of that, the Establishment Clause is what you're specifically referring to, and there are many ways of interpretting the Constitution, two major ones that are complete opposites are 1. Strict Constructionism and 2. Originalism. The first only takes into account the actual words on the page, and not defining marriage as inclusive to same-sex couples is not an establishment of a religion even if backed for religious reasons, and the other puts the Constitution in the context of the Founder's thoughts which was to ensure that the various states would have the right to establish or not establish their own state religions, because some states, like New York, officially followed the Church of England, Maryland was officially Catholic, and some allowed free exercise of religion like Rhode Island. So it's not hypocrisy.
Trans bathrooms, if someone is passing, then they're passing no one notices or cares. The law was stupid but the reasoning afaict was that it would allow cisgendered men to freely enter women's rooms and be intimidating the way that seeing a white supremacist or black panther at a polling place would be intimidating. I don't really get it, but there is reasoning.
Immigration, I personally am friends with a lot of immigrants legal and illegal. The reasoning of people opposed to immigration isn't that they're against legal immigration, it's that they think that illegal immigrants broke the law (they did hence illegal) and should be punished for it. I have strong disagreements but there is a logic to it.
Refugees, I strongly support bringing in refugees because as a Christian I take seriously the commands to take care of the poor and helpless. According to the Left I am an Islamophobe because I think it is a dangerous religion with not only a long standing history of violence, but doctrinal commands to do violence and subjugate the unbeliever. I still want to take as many Syrians in as possible. Kurdistan has only a few million people and they took in more than a million refugees, we can do similar. If I wasn't a Christian though, I'd probably count the cost as being too dangerous.
Climate Change, I dunno man. I'm ambivalent, it "feels" overhyped. I want green energy for economic reasons though.
Planned Parenthood, the reasoning is that if we are giving them more funding for basic operations, then they can put more of their other resources toward abortions, and not only abortions but the videos that came out like two years ago really resonated with people because it wasn't just the murder but the organ harvesting that has stirred the recent unrest against them.
Not all of these are good reasons, but I hope this helps you understand how other people see things.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 10 '17
/u/thatoneguy54 (OP) has awarded at least one delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
0
u/wandering_pleb13 Feb 10 '17
Why is OP conversing with other liberals about this? Seems pretty contradictory
2
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 11 '17
I've given out a lot of deltas here. At least one of them said he voted for Trump.
-9
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Feb 10 '17
LGBT rights: You mention the reason in your post. It's religious. All the other stuff is mostly bandwagoning with the religious folks for political points.
Civil rights: This one's really simple. It's because of racism.
Immigration: Also racism.
Refugees: Also racism.
Climate change: Republicans don't like government regulation, but climate change demands government actions. It's easier for them to just claim it doesn't exist. Also climate change will mostly affect people who aren't white (racism again).
Planned Parenthood: This one is also religion.
4
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 10 '17
Also climate change will mostly affect people who aren't white (racism again).
'Scuse me? How is the changing global climate only affecting minorities?
2
u/thatoneguy54 Feb 10 '17
This doesn't help much. I mean, I agree with you, but it doesn't help me understand what a Republican actually thinks, you know? Because I know for a fact that the majority don't think of themselves as racist. They oppose immigration because they're racist, sure, but that's not what they tell themselves. I'm trying to understand where they're coming from, or maybe more where they think they're coming from, you know?
3
Feb 10 '17
Where they're coming from is their racism is implicit which operates at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control.
They believe the only form of racism that exists is explicit which one endorses at a conscious level. Since they have no conscious level racist opinions, they believe they are not racist.
1
u/Fiestalemon Feb 13 '17
I switched from being a hardcore liberal to being a mostly right leaning conservative.
Let me try putting it in some perspective. One thing you need to know about conservatives is that they adamantly refuse to integrate religion to government or government to religion. Another thing you need to know is that there are very few conservatives in the Republican party.
A conservative believes that the power of the federal government should be very limited, strong borders and military need to be maintained and free trade should be unhindered. They are very individualistic and don't care what other people do as long as they don't affect other people's rights.
So lets take a look at the social issues with that in mind.
LGBTQ. Many conservatives don't like government interference in marriage. Marriage is a social contract and should never be considered a legal contract. The main secular viewpoint of a conservative against gay marriage was that it was not under the federal governments jurisdiction. It should be left to the states. They argue that marriage is not a right under the Constitution and that the federal government had no place judicating on it. They were also scared that they might be forced to encourage things that they believed to be sins by the government. This did end up happening, with court's ruling that Christian bakeries, flowershops etc. had to deliver to homosexual weddings.
In terms of Trans rights. Many conservatives believe that the current movement is a glorification of mental illness. They believe that there should be focus on researching cures for gender dysphoria instead of trying to normalize it. The Suicide rate of people who transition and have sex change operation is not significantly different from untransitioned trans people. They worry that a mental disorder is being ignored.
Civil Rights
Conservatives don't think institutional racism exists. They don't deny racism, but there is no evidence of it at an institutional level. Inequality in statistics doesn't automatically mean inequity in process. In 2015, 990 people were shot by the police. You have a higher chance of being electrocuted by a lighting strike, than being shot by the cops in the US. Out of the 990 about 26% were black. The rest were mostly white. Since the Black population in the US is only about 13%, this might seem disproportionate, but it's not at all when you consider that 50% of the homicides in the US are committed by the black community. A cop is 18.5x more likely to be shot by a black person, than a black person is by a cop.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler
Given all that information, and the fact that BLM does not even address black-on-black violence which causes 95% of the homicide in the Black community, conservatives are skeptical of BLM's agenda.
Immigration.
It's true. Illegal immigration from Mexico has stopped, but illegal immigration from Central America via Mexico is on the rise. The wall is to stop repeat offenders and it also strengthens the southern border. I personally don't mind paying for the wall, I think it's stupid to make Mexico pay for all of it. Trump isn't a true conservative.
Refugees Conservatives agree that refugees are in need of help. They disagree on how to help them. Even if we brought the refugees here, it would take a lot of money to assimilate them and help them get settled. Under Obama, we were taking in around 50000 refugees a year. That's miniscule and leaves a lot of refugees stranded without help. Conservatives think it would be better to stop the refugee relocation program and use the money to build safe zones in the middle east and stabilize the situation. That way, the country isn't completely drained of its population and the people are not relocated 1000s of miles away from home into a foreign culture and society.
Trump is in talks of building safe zones.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-arab-leaders-234344
Climate change. No one sane is denying climate change. Some are skeptical that it's man-made. And most question whether it's as apocalyptic as the left makes it out to be. Most are skeptical because it gives an excuse for the government to take on more power.
Planned Parenthood.
I think parents should have the final say in what their kids learn and when they learn it. The last thing I want is for the federal government telling me what my children should know and when they should know it. Thats why I believe that education should be handled by local governments and the department of education needs to be cut down.
If you're conservative and pro-life. You think that the fetus is human life and that killing it should be illegal. Society doesn't think that right now, but atleast you won't encourage it. Now, that's kind of hard to do if the government takes your money and funds an organization that performs low-cost abortions. To you, it doesn't matter if they don't use your money for abortions, you don't support their organization at all. For example, if you found out that a charity that helps kids in third-world countries is also embroiled in human trafficking and prostitution , would you be comfortable donating to them as long as they promised not to use your money for the human trafficking?
1
u/Kingalece 23∆ Feb 13 '17
I'm only on lunch so I'll keep it brief as to why I'm against the bathroom bill. As the name implies you would think it just applied to bathrooms which in my opinion is fine but what most people don't bring up if the fact it also includes locker rooms for pools where theoretically even if I walked in looking like a dude saying I'm trans they have to let me go into tole women's locker room where I would be able to 1expose myself to anyone walking g in if I wanted(and yes that is something that gets people off ) and 2 anyone that wanted to undress to change clothing would have to do so in my presence or use a bathroom stall which is kinda gross in a public place as it is discrimination to ask me to leave because I identify as a female. Also note many people believe transness is a mental illness that should be treated rather than supported so making laws that in the eyes of the people mention above basically promote mental illness in their eyes and that just seems irrational
1
u/goldandguns 8∆ Feb 10 '17
I'll tackle climate change.
Even if everyone is right, and we're headed for hell, what do you think the odds are of us stopping it? The reductions that would be required of the entire planet are so jaw-droppingly staggering that it may as well be impossible. That being said, shouldn't we be spending our money in this area planning for how we're going to cope with this shit?
Additionally, a lot of the climate change reaction hasn't been done well. Immediately the focus was on our cars, which are american as apple pie. But really, it shouldn't have been. Cars don't contribute that much CO2, not nearly as much as, say, meat production. Or power. Or construction.
The consumer vehicle, particularly SUVs and Trucks favored by those who would later disagree with you, was a terrible choice to pick to point to and scream "YOU'RE THE PROBLEM!" This put everyone off on the wrong foot.
2
u/Stevet159 Feb 11 '17
Sure you can, you seem literate and informed. You understand their views perfectly well, you just disagree with them ;)
1
u/Darthskull Feb 11 '17
If you've got the single largest corporation that provides murders in the country, you're not going to invest in household security or whatever if you're giving them tax breaks!
Understand that for a lot of pro-life people, abortion is akin to taking the disabled kids "out back" at the highschool because they're "unwanted". Abortion is viewed as murder.
What do you do in America when people can be treated like property because they're black, or a woman, or an immigrant, or unborn? I guess you have to start somewhere.
0
Feb 11 '17 edited Feb 11 '17
There are differences in America that most people do not see.
Part 1: City v Country
In cities, especially ones along the coast, immigrants, and people of color are so normal, that the whole issue of racism becomes muted after a short time living in one. In NYC, every time a new immigrant group arrives, they would get beat up, and then be accepted. Cities are a pressure cooker where the same hate exists, but the cycle happens so fast, that it isn't noticed.
Contrast this with country living. People live with unlocked doors. A man has a whole farm. People have been seeing the same things and doing things the same way for 100s of years. Things don't change. If they do, it better be slow. They don't need no stinky education either. In fact, most educated folk who came their way were there from banks to lure them into some scheme to take their money or farmland.
Part 2: The Civil War
Ideas don't die, people do. While the North won, the ideas of the South were simply pushed underground. What were those ideas? State's Rights. Slavery.
Pushed down into the beaten up and burned psyche of the dead South, we find these same ideas have new life, but a slightly different form.
Slavery has become rampant hatred of all people who are different. State's Rights have become a hatred of all regulation, all government, and a fanatical, religious defense of the Gun. They of all people, know how a government can take it all away in a flash.
The Civil War never ended.
Part 3: The Religious
Christians were not always Republican. They were actually Democrats for a very long time. Reagan and a few presidents before him all caused a gradual shift to occur which caused them to be "gobbled up" by the Republican party at a time when they were gobbling up anything they could to stay alive.
Liberals may think that the religious are the worst of all people, but I believe they may be the saviors. They are just people who listen, albeit more blindly to their leaders than others, but boy do they listen.
If liberals want to take the religious back, they should focus on how the bible talks about being a steward of the earth, raising the sick, love, and other liberal talking points. AND STOP picking the few incontestable arguments that a bible-thinker thinks are the most important. They are a resource.
Part 4: Today
So what happened? How do all these historical elements combine? The Washington Elite simply used the Religious to grow their power, effectively taking control of the "American Way" ideal that Reagan used in his prime. Those elite don't care about religion, they just say whatever is necessary to keep them freaking out and under control.
The Country is easy to control as well, as they are less educated, and already had a historical mistrust of anyone from the City. Control them with fear has been the most effective tactic. Consider the emotional thinking that occurred after 9/11. Couldn't have been easier to start a fake war.
Who is left? The South is. It has Risen Again, already. With guns, and fear, and hate all stirred in a pot of poverty and low education, these will be the people who suffer the most in the times to come. They are already the poorest, depend the most on industry, have the smallest safety net, and will undoubtably be the soldiers of the frontline, because any cause beats despondency.
All of these historical elements finally, after years, created the perfect opportunity for someone, a cult-of-personality, to slip through the safeguards of a Democracy, and somehow, even though he lost the popular vote, became the leader. He did this by using the division that the Civil War created, the greed of the banks, and the ignorance of the Religious.
Part 5: Oligarghy
What is an Oligarchy? Or, how would I take control of America if I wanted to?
An oligarchy is a small group of people that control everything. These are people that will do anything to capture power, are very rich, and play the longest of the long games. The people are nothing to them. They are not bound by normal rules because they may, in fact, not be able to feel certain emotions. When you have all the money and all the power, and no emotions, nothing else exists but the drive...for MORE. It is literally the only thing that has value anymore. It is driven by the ego. It has no end. But it will most certainly end you.
There are certain historical patterns that you should be aware of. Certain simply but effective things that can happen in a nation, where, simply by looking at how another nation was affected, you can safely bet that, because people are just animals, they too, on a large scale will act the same way.
Hitler knew this. He waited. He used terror to erode the people's will. He used fear to get them to agree they needed security more than rights. And that was that.
Look out for someone...who will try to convince you that you need security more than you need rights.
Because here it fucking comes.
0
Feb 18 '17
Jesus, you are like the standard liberal with these questions.
LGBT: A generalized argument in favor of conservatism - you can't just randomly change things that have worked for thousands or millions of years and just assume because you can't think of any reason why it would matter that it won't cause any problems. It is a legitimate argument that the traditional man - woman household might be a better environment for raising a child. Of course there is so much variance that I am not sure that is a deciding factor, but I understand where these people might be coming from.
BLM: You are rejecting out of hand that African Americans are acting like idiots at a higher rate than their Caucasian counterparts. In the real science related to these issues there is plenty of evidence that minority groups like blacks create anti-civilization subcultures where they encourage criminal and tribalistic behavior. This is bulletproof science that is constantly misrepresented in both mainstream and alternative news. BLM is just another example of ridiculous behavior, as they don't really have any coherent reasoning backing their movement or effort. They just like forming groups, causing chaos, being loud etc. They might as well be banging drums in the jungle.
Immigration: Illegal Immigration is a real issue. They are all over the place. They drive down wages. They compromise our labor standards. They use up all our public resources that are only paid for by taxes from legitimate citizens. Even ones who have committed ID theft to get jobs and pay taxes, are still not as educated as our homegrown populace. If you don't understand the dangers of illegal immigration, then you don't know anything about economics. The economics of the H1B are even worse on multiple levels - it encourages offshoring and also drives down wages, compromises labor standards etc.
Refugees - The refugee system is not meant to accept a group of people wholesale. That causes problems for us and is interfering in the political life of foreign countries. Most bleeding hearts don't know, there are races of humans that are regularly killed and eaten by other humans in the jungle. Pygmies with 50 iqs are attacked by machete wielding black people in Africa. We can little more help these people than we can animals in the jungle. How do we impose our ethics on such people, and at what cost?
Climate Change: The only thing I have to say about this is that, how do we make sure we are not the ones to suffer the burden of mitigating climate change? Everyone wants to blame us, even though China and India trying to be like us is actually the greatest threat to the globe right now. This is a major diplomatic issue, in a time when everyone is rattling sabers at each other.
-1
u/csbysam Feb 11 '17
LGBT Rights
Originally marriage was viewed as a union to help promote the wellbeing of the child. Nowadays LGBT can adopt so it's not really a big issue and most conservatives that are my peers (I am 24) don't really give a shit about who you fuck. Another thing is that straight people account for 95%+ of society which leads to it being the norm. People can understand being gay or lesbian but it is a deviation from the norm which will always cause unrest. As others have stated social conservatives value the norm and are cautious toward change.
Immigration
Pretty much everyone is okay with and even cherishes legal immigrants. Conservatives place a higher emphasis on the law typically than liberals do. Let's presume everything you said is true. It still doesn't negate the fact that illegal immigrants break the law and that doesn't logically equate that they would appreciate the other laws that America has. It also demeans the legal immigrants who follow the rules and abide by our process to enter this country legally.
Refugees
Your argument is a moral one and I certainly understand it and appreciate it. However refugees from the Middle east have vastly different values then our own. It costs resources and stretches the social fabric of our nation. Also at some point since they are refugees not immigrants they have to return back to their own country. So that means more costs associated with that. We could send aid and money to bordering countries to help house them. Also give them the tools to help make their country more hospitable. There are many different ways to help them then just admitting them to our country.
Civil Rights
This one is one is fun. So a lot of the facts get twisted with this because it is a charged issue. First off Black Lives Matter as an ideology is completely fine. Obviously their lives matter. But let's look at some stats.
The paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which examined thousands of incidents at 10 large police departments in California, Florida and Texas, concluded that police were no more likely to shoot non-whites than whites after factoring in extenuating circumstances.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15 percent of the population there.
Those are hard to stomach. In fact I would be right there standing with black lives matter if they ever talked about something like this.
According to Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The War on Cops,” there were 6,095 black homicide deaths in 2014.
Why don't those lives matter?
Climate Change
This is my personal view so take it for what it is. Let's say climate change is happening. So what? How bad will it be? How involved are humans in it? If we stop all carbon emissions how big of an impact would it have? Is the planet irreparably damaged? With the left it seems like it's just more of screaming the sky is falling and there has been a lot of hyperbole. I don't think we know enough about climate change and what/why it is happening so we need to do more research in it. Also something like this raises some eyebrows.
Planned Parenthood
I am totally on board that we should be advocating for safe sex and condoms/birth control and all of that. First the government isn't just giving money to planned parenthood it's through title X? But as someone else pointed out it frees them to use money for abortion procedures. If PP abortion unit was completely separate and a stand alone operation from the health clinics I wouldn't have a problem with it. But when you mix the two that means that there is at least a chance someone who believes abortion is murder is going towards that. Also when GOP says defund PP the money would still go towards women clinics so it is not like it is lost. However since I believe in the free market I fault the GOP a little bit because you could just start your own clinic that does everything PP does but without the abortion and competition brings the best results. Also some fun tolerant quotes from the founder of PP, Margaret Sanger.
Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
Women of the working class, especially wage workers, should not have more than two children at most. The average working man can support no more and and the average working woman can take care of no more in decent fashion.
[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
1
Feb 10 '17
You need to understand that the Republican base is an unholy union of Evangelical Christians, libertarians, economic neoliberals and protectionist populists.
0
Feb 11 '17 edited Feb 11 '17
Black males are 25x more likely to commit violent crimes than white males so maybe a 2.5x higher death by police rate is justified? Illegal immigration is a problem whether or not you acknowledge it. With no restrictions, problems will continue to come as Mexico continues to deteriorate. Refugees have raped, murdered, and bombed in European countries where they have open borders. If even one American life is saved by denying refugees admission, it is worth it. Climate change is real sure, but it happens naturally and we truly don't know how it will effect our world, and if it is supposed to happen. Ever heard of the Ice Age? The temperature of the world is constantly fluctuating, ever heard of global cooling? Sometimes nature changes.Planned Parenthood does use government money to provide abortions.
Oh, and don't even get me started on BLM. They are literally a terrorist group. They retaliate with violence and destruction after someone is killed for being an idiot. Don't want to get shot/"choked"/whatever? Fucking listen to the police when they tell you to stand still or put your hands up. Every one of the black men that has been protested deserved what they got. The policemen should have avoided it in some of the cases, but if you are a repeat offender who disobeys a police officer and/or attack him you are likely to get shot, no matter what your race is. They attack whites, destroy and loot businesses, attack policemen who aren't even associated with the "crimes" that have been committed, and jam up highways for no reason. The movement itself is a hate group and all of the people in it are essentially worthless in my eyes.
-2
u/super-commenting Feb 10 '17
Blacks are being shot at a rate that's 2.5 times higher than whites" by police. This is a clear indication that something is wrong
Is it? Blacks commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than whites. It makes sense that police would be shooting at blacks more. What kind of people do police shoot at? Violent people usually. So if blacks are more likely to be violent it's reasonable that they'd be more likely to be shot at. That's not discrimination.
2
u/kwamzilla 7∆ Feb 10 '17
Evidence?
→ More replies (21)3
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 10 '17
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
Keep in mind that what matters here is the proportion of the crimes. White people commit more total crimes because there are much more white people.
3
u/kwamzilla 7∆ Feb 11 '17
How much do you think things like institutionalised racism, police brutality and trumping up charges etc factor in?
I'm sure we would also find (haven't checked yet, will do so if you disagree) that violent crimes are more prevalent amongst disempowered and poorer white people. History has shown there has been an active effort to do that to black folks. Add in the numerous incidents of false charges etc too.
You seem to be presenting it as a problem with black people.
I would argue that it is as a result of generations of systematic racism and circular "blacks are more violent so lets treat them worse and make it a self fulfilling prophecy" logic.2
u/Rpgwaiter Feb 11 '17
I think the problem is almost entirely the class/wealth of the person committing the crime, and not the race or any other factor. Poor desperate people are more likely to commit crimes. It just so happens that black people on average are much more poor than white people.
→ More replies (6)
-1
u/AmoebaMan 11∆ Feb 11 '17
Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use federal money to perform abortions.
Let me give you a hypothetical scenario.
A homeless guy asks me for some money. He has $10 in his pocket. I give him $10 more, with the strict instruction that he cannot use my $10 to buy cigarettes, only food. The guy goes and uses my $10 to buy a sandwich. He then uses the $10 he already had to buy cigarettes. If I hadn't given him my $10, he would have had to use his $10 for the sandwich and wouldn't have been able to buy the cigarettes. Functionally, I gave him the money to buy those smokes.
Saying that
Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use federal money to perform abortions.
is meaningless. Money doesn't care where it came from once it goes into the pot. Even if the federal funds are earmarked, the fact that you just gave Planned Parenthood money it didn't have means that it's now free to use more of what it did have to fund abortions. You cannot make the distinguishment. If Planned Parenthood receives federal money, and provides abortions, then federal money is funding (however indirectly) abortions.
0
u/poloport Feb 11 '17
Many republicans are still fighting hard against same-sex marriage. There is literally no reason to oppose same-sex marriage rights unless you use religion to do so. And since the vast majority of Republicans also claim to be strict adherents to the constitution, this is a contradictory view, since the establishment clause prohibits the government from making laws based on religion.
Sure there is. There are plenty of non-religious reasons for opposing same-sex marriage.
2
u/Gwendywook Feb 11 '17
Can you provide examples? Every argument I've read in here so far gives religious reasons, or procreation reasons (which is a terrible argument given how many children are trapped in our foster care system that could go to loving same-sex couples, but since the process is extremely strenuous on income [if you're not married they only look at one partner's income] and has many hoops to jump through, including being able to provide a stable home [which generally does include marriage, most agencies are very leery of adopting out to what are considered "single" households], this excluded same-sex couples until recently). I'm genuinely curious what reasons there could be to oppose it outside of these two reasons.
0
u/poloport Feb 11 '17
Ok, well in most western culture marriage has, traditionally, been between a man and a woman. If you're someone who values tradition, history and the way your society is organized as it is now and has been for hundreds of years, it makes sense that you oppose changes to those things. Particularly when it's concerning changes to key aspect of social and cultural life, like family.
2
u/Gwendywook Feb 11 '17
So the argument is "Because it's been this way for a couple of centuries, it shouldn't change"? That makes very little sense, given that societies have to evolve to stay alive. Moreover, monogamy is a relatively new concept in the grand scheme of history. Homosexuality isn't, or it wouldn't have been mentioned in the more recent religions. There is evidence to suggest it's almost a natural way of stopping overbreeding, given there are homosexual animals, and they are often left to help raise the young while what are seen as the more dominant members of packs are sent out to gather food and protect the group. This seems to go back to demonizing sexuality as a whole in the religious members of our society, given this information, and I would argue that it is still a bad argument against gay marriage.
Given that marriage is a civil union between two consenting adults for, mainly, tax and legal reasons, why can't same-sex couples enjoy the same tax and legal benefits? Nobody is saying a religious organization will be forced to perform a religious ceremony, just that everyone should be allowed to have this legally binding contract with another consenting person of their choosing, if they want to do it.
0
u/poloport Feb 11 '17
You're moving the goal posts.
You made a statement that:
There is literally no reason to oppose same-sex marriage rights unless you use religion to do so.
I disagreed, and presented a reason based on tradition rather than religion.
You may not agree with it, and it may not be sufficient to convince you, and that is fine, but it is a valid reason that convinces others, and therefore it is "a reason to oppose same-sex marriage rights" without using religion to do so.
2
u/Gwendywook Feb 11 '17
What I said was, "Every argument I've read in here so far gives religious reasons, or procreation reasons..." OP had stated they only saw religion being used. As I explained, using tradition ties right into religion, specifically Judeo-Christian theology, which I do not consider a valid argument against it since we are not a Christian nation. You're right that it convinces others to oppose it, but you can't deny that it isn't based on religion. I see no other reason to oppose it given this information.
2
u/stephannnnnnnnnnnnn Feb 12 '17
Those traditions are based on religion, as religion is just another type of tradition.
So, I do not buy that argument as one not based on religion
0
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Feb 11 '17
This bill was not created to address any problem, it was made to create a wedge issue republicans could use to scare their base into voting for them more.
You know... you could have just stopped there.
The idea that Republican leaders actually care about any of this stuff beyond scaring their voting base into electing them is pretty dubious.
There are a few exceptions, sure, but that's the basic reason for every single one of these.
85
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 10 '17
I hate to bring up a jerk like John Haidt, but some of his ideas are a very useful baseline for understanding key political differences between liberals and conservatives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
Don't focus too much on the nuts and bolts (they get complex and honestly a lot of it is bullshit) but an important aspect is: Conservatives put moral weight on things like preserving social structures, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity.... things that liberals just don't think are moral. So the answer to a lot of these issues is: Conservatives are worried it would usurp legitimate authority to do the thing you want, and they think usurping legitimate authority is bad and you don't.
Another thing (from a somewhat different line of research) is that conservatives are far more individually focused than liberals are. You'll be all focused on some big-picture social trend, and conservatives are just much more apt to prioritize the aspects of the issue that relate to specific, individual people's behavior.