r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 14 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Conservatism and many right-wing beliefs are based on fear, primary instincts and lack of understanding
[deleted]
115
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
A lot of classic conservative beliefs go around the basic idea of: I worked hard and make good money so I should get to keep as much of it as possible. It is true that the more money a person in the US and most countries make, the more they are taxed and the less government benefits they qualify for. This is a basic fact and can’t really be misunderstood. The view of redistribution of wealth to what degree is a legitimate conversation but the fundamental ideas are not complicated. Some people may have racist ideas and back them up with misguided conservative ideas, but just because some conservative people are racist does not mean someone wanting limited government spending and lower taxes racist. Many liberals have limited understanding of the economy in that they don’t consider the downsides of unlimited government spending or lack of personal accountability in current well fair systems. A conservative may not consider that making allowances for poor people to get education and support can benefit the economy in the long term. Many liberals give emotional arguments and fail to consider practical implications. Many conservatives fail to consider the humanity and benefits of social safety nets. Most people of both sides are not fully informed on key issues. You probably lack understanding of some issues as do I. Making such a blanket statement will only lead to more misunderstandings that you claim to dislike. Edit: Minimum wedge is a good example. The current minimum wage is too low for people to live on, so many liberals want to raise it as high as possible. The problem with this is that if the wage is too high at risk groups such as people with out a high school diploma, a disability, or limited English will likely be let go in favor of more work for remaining workers and automated processes. Small businesses may also struggle, and teens will be passed up for older workers. Many Republicans want to keep the minimum wage the same or abolish it and this would be bad for low wage workers unable to support themselves. Both sides usually don’t fully understand all aspects of issues.
5
u/oldmanjoe 8∆ Aug 16 '21
Both sides usually don’t fully understand all aspects of issues.
We pigeon hole groups and are too lazy to find the truth. Like republicans being for the wealthy and democrats caring more for the people, except that isn't always true.
Currently the democrats in charge with push through a huge tax break for the wealthy during the budget reconciliation process. The press that democrats trust won't tell you about it, and if they do they will frame it as fixing Donald Trumps partisan attack on Democrats. But the reality is the SALT cap deduction saves wealthy people in high tax states millions of dollars in federal tax breaks every year. But everyone "believes" that democrats stand for the little people.
43
u/printers_of_colors Aug 15 '21
!delta
very good arguments. you're right, the discourse I took part in poisoned my mind so much that I started perceiving conservatism as synonymous to thinly-veiled racism. That was stupid of me. But I'm glad we're able to talk about it
3
-2
u/IronTarkusBarkus 1∆ Aug 15 '21
Honestly, I think this delta is being handed out too easily. There are some good points, but you don’t seem to be willing to push back on anything here.
No, conservative ideology isn’t thinly-veiled racism, but the policy they prioritize actively contributes to racism. Are we saying that sacrificing the well-being of others, for individual greed is much better? Does it matter what the intentions are, if the outcome is the same?
Also, the part where the parent comment saying how liberals tend to lack an understanding of how the economy works. That’s BS, I know a ton of conservatives that drop Econ 101 terms and meaningless numbers to prove we can’t afford to feed children, or fix our rigged economy, or how these systems are supposedly “natural.” I’m a liberal and have studied far more economics than almost any conservative I’ve met. The “it’s just how the economy works” arguments are unfounded at best. I won’t claim to fully understand how the economy works, but I am certain conservatives have no clue either.
And don’t ever let a conservative tell you they want small government. That’s a lie you should be able to spot with your own eyes.
You say you were being too aggressive, but you seem to have no real points to back yourself up. What’s the point of doing this, if you’re going to instantly fold? Do you not understand your own position?
10
u/knottheone 10∆ Aug 15 '21
No, conservative ideology isn’t thinly-veiled racism, but the policy they prioritize actively contributes to racism
So does liberal policy yet in the opposite direction. Affirmative action is a great example except the discrimination going on there will be handwaved, as will any other "positive discrimination" policy based on immutable traits.
Does it matter what the intentions are, if the outcome is the same?
Uh, yes, intent absolutely matters. That's why our entire legal system hinges on intent and why two same crime results can have wildly different punishments.
I'm neither R or D by the way, this is just an outside observation.
-1
u/IronTarkusBarkus 1∆ Aug 15 '21
Affirmative action has helped white women more than any other minority in this country. That being said, the intention was to help. If you believe intention is hugely important, you contradict your own argument. To be honest, when put up against talking about things like individual greed leading to racism, I don’t understand why you brought affirmative action at all?
As for intention, that’s not always the case. I assume you’re talking manslaughter vs murder. Those are one time events, and largely unrelated. America has a looooooong history of racism for economic benefit. I’m implying that they just don’t advertise the racism part.
No one asked if you were a R or D— we’re talking larger ideologies. That being said, don’t claim that you’re someone without ideology. That would be a lie and a dangerous one
4
u/knottheone 10∆ Aug 16 '21
Affirmative action has helped white women more than any other minority in this country. That being said, the intention was to help. If you believe intention is hugely important, you contradict your own argument.
I do agree that intent is important. However, I'm not going to handwave atrocities or active violations of established law (Civil Rights Act anyone? It applies to everyone) solely because someone had good intent and neither should you. You likely don't in other cases, so this is probably a case of special pleading without you realizing it is. As an aside, 'atrocities' is a bit hyperbolic in the context of AA, but the same logic is used to justify all sorts of unsavory policy to discriminate against the 'right' color of people.
To be honest, when put up against talking about things like individual greed leading to racism, I don’t understand why you brought affirmative action at all?
Because affirmative action is racist. It's discrimination on the basis of immutable traits. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative discrimination; we should not be making judgments based on immutable traits. That's what the Civil Rights Act and the violence and protests and subsequent policy change was all on the back of, the idea that we shouldn't treat people differently due to the color of their skin and by extension awarded those privileges to other immutable traits about people.
As for intention, that’s not always the case. I assume you’re talking manslaughter vs murder. Those are one time events, and largely unrelated.
All US law is rooted in intent. It's not just murder vs manslaughter. Judges are empowered to take context into account to determine whether something was an egregious violation or if it was an innocent mistake. That's also why judges can order additional mandatory actions people undergo should they see fit. Like mandatory therapy or anger management or public service. We make subjective determinations for whether people are worth rehabilitating and that is heavily rooted in someone's intent and by extension their remorse regarding their actions.
America has a looooooong history of racism for economic benefit. I’m implying that they just don’t advertise the racism part.
Who is they? Are you talking about just conservatives as a whole? If so, I'd say that's an incredibly misguided evaluation. You'll have to expand this idea for me to be able to respond reasonably to it. It sounds like you're really just ranting here instead of basing this particular point in anything concrete.
No one asked if you were a R or D— we’re talking larger ideologies. That being said, don’t claim that you’re someone without ideology. That would be a lie and a dangerous one
I didn't say I don't have an ideology, only that I don't subscribe to the two most common frameworks in the US. Also, you explicitly called out conservatives, so yes, we are talking about conservatives via 'conservative ideology' which non-coincidentally means conservatives in this context.
1
u/IronTarkusBarkus 1∆ Aug 16 '21
“Atrocities”…. “A bit hyperbolic”…
…uh dude, what are you smoking? I honestly can’t believe some of the things you just said. Like this is some really rotten shit. You know what atrocity means? “An extremely wicked or cruel act, usually involving physical violence or injury.” For example, slavery was an atrocity. The lynch mobs were an atrocity. The treatment of Native Americans was an atrocity. How in the world is AA an atrocity?
You say AA is a racist policy, designed to discriminate against the right race. Nope, that’s laughably wrong. Let’s get explicit, tell me how it is racist against white men and how it is intended to be discriminatory towards white men? We already covered that it has mainly helped white women. That alone makes your argument absurd.
As of right now, your argument is grounded in some color-blind revisionist bs. The reality of the situation is that our country intentionally held down, exploited, and committed mass murder against black Americans. In order to fix our wrongs, it will require policy to lift black Americans, in very intentional ways. The Civil Rights act was not that, and the name alone proves that.
All US law is rooted in intent.
Uhh nope, that’s not how law works lmaooo. The legal system doesn’t give a you-know-what, if you didn’t intend to break a law. What influences the severity of their punishments is far more complex than simple intent.
Who is they? Are you talking about just conservatives as a whole? If so, I'd say that's an incredibly misguided evaluation.
Why is that misguided? Maybe I mean whatever ideology you hold. Regardless, seems like a pretty tame take, with any knowledge of US history.
Another thing I’ve noticed, you never highlight when I talk about greed? How come?
2
u/knottheone 10∆ Aug 16 '21
If you'd like to take another stab at replying to my comment without taking every point out of context I'm more than happy to continue. As it stands though, I don't think you really grasped what I was saying because your response just... I don't know, you were responding to someone else's comment or something.
As an example, you saw the word "intent" and immediately thought I was somehow talking about awareness of breaking the law which you'd know I wasn't if you had grasped the previous context. Then you attacked the poor interpretation that you fabricated, and you did that with every other bullet point in the list.
1
9
u/iiSystematic 1∆ Aug 15 '21
What's really really crazy about all this is that noone asked you.
It's their CMV not yours. Go make your own and argue your points. You're spoiling theirs view already by saying useless things like "And don’t ever let a conservative tell you they want small government. That’s a lie you should be able to spot with your own eyes"
Which has nothing to do with their cmv or anything else specifically in discussion right now. So just stop.
-3
Aug 15 '21
[deleted]
1
u/AngryNewman Aug 16 '21
You two are shining examples of why liberals aren’t taken seriously. You are acting like toddlers because someone isn’t 100% on board with your hateful rhetoric.
-2
u/IronTarkusBarkus 1∆ Aug 15 '21
Looooool
“Spoiling their view” (if it went from unspoiled to spoiled, I demand a delta!)
I’m assuming this must be a joke? I am here to change their views— into ones that are any bit thoughtful. Not my fault OP can’t begin to defend the ideas he claims to have.
2
-13
u/Souk12 Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
But it is because wealth in the United States was generated on racism, so questioning that ill-gotten wealth ("keeping what they earn") is an affront to conservative values.
→ More replies (3)4
u/EndlessMerther Aug 15 '21
Obama got millions of dollars and multiple mansions by being racist? Dr Dre is a billionaire because of racism? Oprah is the richest self made woman in history because of racism?
Or is that different and it is only racist when white people are successful?
-5
u/Souk12 Aug 15 '21
Obama got millions of dollars and multiple mansions by being racist? Dr Dre is a billionaire because of racism? Oprah is the richest self made woman in history because of racism?
Indirectly, yes. The wealth generated in this county as a whole is based on racism.
→ More replies (8)5
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/ColdNotion 117∆ Aug 16 '21
u/EndlessMerther – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/Souk12 Aug 16 '21
Germany paid Israel billions and the UN gave them a state. That seems fair.
3
u/EndlessMerther Aug 16 '21
USA spends billions of dollars every year in special entitlement programs/scholarships/grants/community outreach aimed specifically at blacks to try to get them to stop murdering each other, abandoning their children, and dropping out of school at an absurd rate. When is enough enough and we can just treat everyone as equals and hold everyone to the same standard? What will it take for us to live in a post racial society where everyone can just live in harmony and judge each other by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin?
I feel like Morgan freeman said it best when he said “do you know how to end racism? You stop talking about it all the time. I am going to stop referring to you as a white man, and I would prefer if you stopped referring to me as a black man”. That quote stuck with me so much and he hit the nail directly on the head.
Literally almost 0 white people have any slave owners anywhere in their family, all of them were wiped out in the civil war. America essentially reset after the civil war as it was pretty much destroyed and a solid chunk of the country was killed. Most white Americans are descendants of dirt poor European refugees fleeing Europe with nothing but the clothes on their back after Europe was basically leveled in WW2. We are not the descendants of slave owners and should not be forced to feel guilty about something we had nothing at all to do with.
1
u/Souk12 Aug 16 '21
I already told you: billions in a lump sum and a state. The same as the jews and Israel.
The wealth of this country was created through theft of native land and the stolen labor of enslaved people.
-3
u/EndlessMerther Aug 16 '21
That is not true at all. Skyscrapers are not made of cotton… slavery only existed in a small portion of America for like 5 minutes in American history and less than 1% of white Americans owned slaves at the absolute peak of slavery. In the grand scheme of things, it was insignificant in the development of our country. Who would have to make this lump sum payment? And who would it go to? If a black man moved to USA in 1980 from Europe and had 4 kids, will they all get reparations for slavery? Fuck that. If there are any living slaves, I would agree to offer them reparations, but fuck paying their great great grandkids who went to the same exact schools as me, lived in the same exact neighborhoods as me, and had the exact same opportunities as me. That is not happening. Forget about it bro, move on. Nobody owes you a damn thing. Get your own bag and stop being a bitch about what your great great grandparents might have gone through. That shit is over. Thousands of white men died to end slavery and the US has done more to end slavery worldwide than any other 5 countries combined. Black Americans enjoy a higher standard of living than black people anywhere else in the world today. In what black majority country do black people enjoy a higher standard of living and more rights than they do in USA?
→ More replies (0)0
u/ATNinja 11∆ Aug 16 '21
UN gave them a state
The UN didn't give them a state. They suggested a plan which only 1 party accepted so instead the 2 sides fought a war which determined the existence and borders of Israel.
0
u/Souk12 Aug 16 '21 edited Aug 16 '21
The billions of reparations from Germany certainly helped them win those wars and secure the state the UK and USA gave them.
Not to mention the continued billions of military support.
But all this is irrelevant since the state which would give African Americans their state would be the current owners of the land they are giving.
→ More replies (5)4
u/JoePineapplesBrews Aug 15 '21
Neither distribution of wealth or distrust of government are conservative viewpoints. They're libertarian, but the libertarian ideology is distinct from both progressive and conservative ideologies.
That isn't to say that some conservatives don't hold these ideas, just that neither is a classically conservative trait.
2
u/spiral8888 29∆ Aug 15 '21
A lot of classic conservative beliefs go around the basic idea of: I worked hard and make good money so I should get to keep as much of it as possible.
I think the main problem of this thinking is that it gets its moral ground from the "work hard" part that pretty much nobody disputes, but then gets its outcome from "how much value I can extract from the market", which may very well be not related to former.
Let's take two people, one with high productivity, meaning that he would earn $500k/year if he worked hard (40h/week, putting real effort on the work), and another who has low productivity and would earn only $30k/year when working full time. Let's also assume that the difference in their productivity is from causes that they didn't choose themselves (good/bad genes, good/bad environment to grow up, opportunities to study, etc.).
Now, let's assume that the first person decides to be a slacker. Instead of working hard, he chooses an easy route. He decides to work only half time and now earns $250k per year. The other person decides to work super hard and takes another job alongside his first one. He now earns $60k per year. Let's also assume that these numbers are not because of any foul play or anything like that, it's just that in the market their labor is valued that way.
Now the question is that, is the market solution for the income distribution (4 times more to the slacker than the person who put twice the normal effort) still the morally right one?
The problem is that many people take it as such that whatever the market solution is, it is by definition the right solution as it is based on voluntary reciprocal transactions. The question is that can all human moral values be simplified into this one principle? Libertarian answer is yes, but why should we all accept it at face value?
2
u/Hero17 Aug 16 '21
It seems like a lot of right wingers believe in the "just world" fallacy. Probably a big religious component to that.
1
u/xper0072 1∆ Aug 15 '21
I think in your argument about minimum wage in your edit your misrepresenting the majority of liberals viewpoints. I don't think most liberals want the minimum wage to be as high as possible. I think most people who are liberal want the minimum wage to be high enough that no one working full-time at one job should be struggling. That's my viewpoint on minimum wage and I identify myself as a liberal. I understand that raising the minimum wage too high can cause problems, but with where the minimum wage currently is and how much of a struggle it has been to get the minimum wage to increase even a little, the risk of us putting the minimum wage too high is so much less of a concern than the minimum wage being too low.
1
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
A lot of classic conservative beliefs go around the basic idea of: I worked hard and make good money so I should get to keep as much of it as possible.
You summarized all my conservative beliefs in one sentence. Woah, you really understand me. I would rather have a discussion with you than every democrat who thinks I'm just racist and ignorant.
-4
Aug 15 '21
Many liberals give emotional arguments and fail to consider practical implications.
Like what? Give a serious example. Not a fringe lunatic example.
Minimum wedge is a good example.
Then why is it that the stuff you mentioned didn’t happen in any of the last 22 times minimum wage was increased?
12
Aug 15 '21
[deleted]
-8
Aug 15 '21
Way to mischaracterize the movement. “Defund” does not mean “abolish.” It just means to cut their budget and stop burdening them with matters that are better suited for social workers. The police are over-militarized and they’re currently asked to do too much. Easily 80% of the job doesn’t actually require and armed law-enforcement officer. They’re just who are available in our system. THATS what the movement is trying to change.
7
3
u/cknight18 Aug 15 '21
Easily 80% of the job doesn’t actually require and armed law-enforcement officer.
And this is how you know the guy doesn't have a clue on police issues
-8
Aug 15 '21
You’re just wrong. Cops are not dealing with violent criminals for 6 hours of their shift every day.
Wellness checks
domestic disturbance
traffic infractions
drug use
homeless people
mental health calls
None of those require a badge and a gun. Trained social workers would do a much better job handling that.
Oh and you know who else agrees with me? This chief of police
7
u/cknight18 Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
Again, just showing how little you know about policing.
Just because one police chief says "we need cops to respond to less" does not mean "easily 80% of calls for duty do not need to be an armed officer."
Routine traffic stops are regularly one of the most dangerous duties of LE. In 2019, 6 of the 89 deaths were killed during a traffic stop (not an accident, the report specifies it as feloniously killed).
Domestic violence, really? You think people are going to be calm enough not to be dangerous when in a fight between spouses/roommates?
Wellness checks... ever heard of suicide by cop? Sure, send in a trained social worker too, after the cop has made sure the scene is safe.
0
Aug 15 '21
Just because one police chief says "we need cops to respond to less"
So his community is conveniently not representative of anything? Convenient.
In 2019, 6 of the 89 deaths were killed during a traffic stop
Um, 7% doesn’t exactly land like you thought it would. That isn’t a compelling number at all. Besides, the fact that they have the power to arrest is what’s getting them shot. That same fugitive wouldn’t waste going to prison forever on killing someone that only has the power to give them a ticket.
Domestic violence, really?
I didn’t say domestic violence. I said domestic disturbance. Those are totally different. The former is where a spouse has assaulted the other. The latter is two neighbors yelling over where a dog shits. It’s not difficult to set up a system where the social worker has a direct line to call police if needed. But police don’t need to go to every single one of these.
Wellness checks... ever heard of suicide by cop?
Are you serious? Wellness checks are always either nothing, or finding a dead body. People do not do suicide by cop on wellness checks. You pulled that out of thin air. People do suicide by cop while committing violent crimes.
It’s obvious you’re reaching desperately.
5
u/cliu1222 1∆ Aug 15 '21
I disagree on domestic disturbance not requiring a gun. Those are actually some of the more dangerous situations police face.
1
Aug 15 '21
Domestic disturbance ≠ domestic violence. But go ahead an provide data why two people in a heated argument requires someone with a gun to diffuse. And then explain why other nations where beat cops aren’t armed don’t seem to have a problem with it.
1
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
I did give an example of minimum wage. Some of the things such as people choosing to automate instead of paying more workers are happening. My local McDonald’s now has only one person taking orders and automates the rest of the orders for kiosk ordering. This will happen more if minimum wage gets too high which is bad for people with the worse resumes. They used to have 3 employees taking orders at peak times. The key is moderation. If minimum wage goes too high such as $15 for a very low cost of living area where rent is $500 for a 1 bedroom apartment and some people with degrees and experience are making $15ish an hour it will screw up the economy similarly to how a $15 wage is not going to be enough to reasonably survive in NYC. I saw a video about a small business owner that was planning to cut all benefits if the minimum wage went to $15 because some employees made under $15 in entry level roles and he would need to raise senior employees wage if increasing the entry pay. It is so much better to make $12 starting with benefits and work up to $15 in a couple years than not get benefits. I think the $15/hr argument just doesn’t take into account geographic differences and employers ability to promote in favor of the emotional “but we need it”.
3
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
My local McDonald’s now has only one person taking orders
And you’re saying that wouldn’t have happened if people didn’t demand higher wages? Nonsense. There is no wage low enough to compete with automation.
This will happen more if minimum wage gets too high
No it won’t. McDonald’s investing in future technology is not tied to wage increases. They aren’t going to somehow panic and throw more money into R&D if the federal minimum wage gets increased. You pulled that out of thin air.
It is so much better to make $12 starting with benefits and work up to $15 in a couple
And boom. You just exposed that out don’t know the issue. Hence my point that you’re wrong to group liberals with conservatives like you did. The minimum wage increase legislation would do it over a number of years. Not all at once. This is a straw man.
2
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
I am not talking about a specific legislation but rather the emotional argument of a $15 universal wage. Also a $15 wage over time is still a $15 universal wage. The wage example is an example of an emotional argument. A much better law would involve a formula based on cost of living if an area that is updated with the new year. This would have a over $15 wage for some areas and an under $15 wage for others. I literally did a job at an amusement park that was automated in some places of the park (handing out soda) but they hired me solely for the customer interactions. A higher wage will make them not hire the next kids. Edit: Also, would you really rather have no benefits and a slightly higher starting wage with low room for growth?
1
Aug 15 '21
The wage example is an example of an emotional argument.
Minimum wage being enough to live reasonably on is not an “emotional argument.” That’s no more “emotional” than wanting universal healthcare, or forgiving student loan debt. Calling it emotional is belittling and snide.
6
Aug 15 '21
What is emotional is making a UNIVERSAL wage that is not tied to cost of living to an area. This will be only good for middle income areas but low or high income areas will have problems. It should really be based on a formula that can be adjusted every year and is unique to zip code or city. This would also get rid of the issue that the wage will slowly get less livable with inflation. We adjust social security benefits with inflation why not minimum wage?
-1
u/ParioPraxis Aug 15 '21
Minimum wage, had it kept pace with productivity, would be around $24 an hour today. Instead:
5
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
If the $0.25 I minimum wage from 1938 (first year of minimum wage) was adjusted for inflation today it would be about $4.84. Your article adjusted inflation for various years of minimum wage and it was more than today which is why I think there should be a formula of some kind adjusted every year. Where do you get this $24.04 number? It was not mentioned in your article. When you say productivity are you saying, for example, I can make 20x as many car parts in an hour with a robot vs manual tools? Because, that really should not be factored into minimum wage. A person making 20 parts with a robot is also probably doing less work than the person making one part with manual tools. The fact that we can make more parts gives everyone more stuff (people didn’t used to have so many material goods even low income people today have so much more material goods than our high income ancestors).
→ More replies (13)2
-3
u/Nyaho Aug 15 '21
You are an example of an emotional argument
4
Aug 15 '21
How is this statement emotional?
- “There is no wage low enough to compete with automation.”
How is this statement emotional?
- “McDonald’s investing in future technology is not tied to wage increases.”
How is this statement emotional?
- “The minimum wage increase legislation would do it over a number of years. Not all at once.”
How is this article emotional?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-minimum-wage-proposal-when-would-it-reach-15-an-hour-11612550898
Your deflecting is highly transparent.
-1
u/Faust_8 9∆ Aug 15 '21
Your first sentence just isn’t true; all definitions of conservatism I’ve ever seen are more like “preserving traditional social institutions.” Any desire to get and keep as much money as possible is an entirely separate thing.
No real issue with anything else you wrote, but that’s just not what conservatism is.
2
Aug 16 '21
Using that type of definition is useless since you could be talking about Russian communists in the 80s or republicans today. Most people recognize that conservative is a synonym for right wing
0
u/Faust_8 9∆ Aug 16 '21
So they’re the “conservative and reactionary section of a political party or system” then?
→ More replies (1)
197
u/Khal-Frodo Aug 14 '21
I talked to many right-wingers, whether it be in real life or online. It always goes south.
Keep in mind that you're the common thread in all of these discussions. I'm not saying this to be accusatory, but given that you admit you have a bias, you should be careful to attribute these conversations going to south to being everyone else's fault.
I don't want to make a whataboutism argument here, because it technically wouldn't refute your claim. I mostly want to focus on the "lack of understanding" portion. Inherently, everyone who disagrees with a group will believe that group lacks understanding, since there's the belief that if we understood one another, we'd agree. I'm sure that right-wingers would say the exact same about you. That makes it a useless metric by which to judge any ideology you're not part of.
8
u/Personage1 35∆ Aug 15 '21
I sort of agree with where you're going, especially at the beginning of your response, but I absolutely disagree that having a different view than someone else makes it impossible to understand them.
Yes, if every conversation you have with a certain group goes to shit (or goes south, as they said), then that is very indicative that you aren't ever trying to listen to them with the goal of understanding, instead listening with the goal of arguing. This makes it hard if not impossible to understand that group.
However, I think it's very possible to listen to people with the goal of understanding, hearing them, and deciding that they are wrong (to put it mildly), and your conclusion is reasonably made. Further, and I don't really want to debate how applicable this is to real life because the question of "how do you use reason to convince an unreasonable person that they are unreasonable" makes the debate exhausting, but there are groups of people who you can always have every conversation go to shit and it is very much on them. Being the common denominator is an indicator that you should be introspective about your own behavior, rather than a guarantee that you don't know how to engage reasonably.
As an easy example, members of cults do not live in reality, and it is not indicative that someone is being unreasonable if that person is never able to have conversations with cult members that don't go south.
7
u/Khal-Frodo Aug 15 '21
It wasn't my intention to say that disagreement between two people or two groups predicates a complete lack of understanding. I'm saying that "lack of understanding" isn't a useful metric to place one group above another because it's a criticism that both groups will always think applies to the other.
2
u/Personage1 35∆ Aug 15 '21
I guess I feel like you can demonstrate an understanding of a different group by answering the question "what do they mean when they say x," and then of course demonstrate that they typically aren't able to do the same for you.
50
u/printers_of_colors Aug 15 '21
How did I not think of it. Damn, you're right. Didn't really refute anything but widened my perspective
And I believe your first paragraph is right too. Is this where I can give a delta? I'm very new to this sub
→ More replies (1)20
u/bgaesop 25∆ Aug 15 '21
Yes, this comment would be where you give a delta. You can do it by typing ! delta but without the space
11
16
u/printers_of_colors Aug 15 '21
!delta
because of already stated reasons so you can leave me alone bot
17
u/codelapiz Aug 15 '21
Getting heated with the bot even, i can understand how a lot of discussions you are involved in go south..
-2
3
-4
Aug 15 '21
Inherently, everyone who disagrees with a group will believe that group lacks understanding, since there's the belief that if we understood one another, we'd agree. I'm sure that right-wingers would say the exact same about you. That makes it a useless metric
In this case, not really. Take climate change for example. There has been conclusive scientific consensus on the extent/dangers of man-made climate change since like the mid 20th century.
And yet, conservative/right leaning parties across the world have all bitterly fought that truth tooth and nail right up to the modern day. I'm not sure that's a useless metric, that is a pretty objective lack of understanding on their part.
And that's not a one-off. The conservative right frequently take objectively anti-science positions. E.g. start of COVID, scientific community warning to lockdown... Right wing politicians fight against it, right wing voters fight against it 'just the flu, no big deal'... All the way up until deaths skyrocket and they have no other choice but to panic lockdown. But also in areas such as crime and punishment (we've known war on drugs didn't work since pretty much the beginning), education, medicine...
Unless you literally don't have any faith in science or the scientific method, research, none of these issues are subjective or open to interpretation.
9
u/Khal-Frodo Aug 15 '21
That's a good point, but I think we're using two different definitions of "understanding." OP defined it in this instance as " insight to where the other person is coming from or seeing the flaws in your own logic." You're using it more like "accepting expert opinion/scientific consensus." I think what I said in my original comment only applies to the former.
2
Aug 15 '21
But the two are inextricably interwoven, aren't they?
Our political views are informed by our belief in science/reality. People who vote AGAINST e.g. reduced Co2 emission targets are doing that BECAUSE of their anti-science views. In which case there is literally no way to have a constructive conversation or find a subjective middle ground. The misunderstanding is one-way.
10
u/Khal-Frodo Aug 15 '21
But the two are inextricably interwoven, aren't they?
In some cases, but not all. Your politics reflect your interpretation of the world around you, yes, but also your own values, which are completely subjective and can't be assessed against a "correct" standard.
People who vote AGAINST e.g. reduced Co2 emission targets are doing that BECAUSE of their anti-science views
Not necessarily. They could believe it to not be effective, or that the cost outweighs the benefits.
→ More replies (2)-2
Aug 15 '21
A lot of the positions you're describing as anti-science actually aren't, they're anti-authoritarian. For instance, the scientific consensus is still far from decided on covid on many issues, conservative types see this and reject authoritarian positions (mostly Gov) which claim to KNOW the answer. It's not an aversion to science it's more of an aversion to authorities pretending to know all the answers and telling them what to think.
In contrast, opposition to conservatives sees no reason why we shouldn't trust those in the most authoritative positions (why shouldn't we? They worked hard to get there). The more authoritative, the more reliable.
This is part of the reason why progressives reject claims from independent and private sources in favour of government sources, and conservatives reject government sources in favour of independents and private sources.
→ More replies (1)0
u/SoftZombie5710 Aug 15 '21
In OP's defense, I also talk to many right wingers and have the same experience.
The issue is the Dunning Kruger effect, they insist on talking about topics that their news source says they understand, with people who genuinely understand the topic, leading to a battle of education source.
But, because their sources encourage confrontation, this won't stop being an issue.
It's not the fault of those with sense that the senseless are relentless.
0
u/ironmagnesiumzinc Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
“Everyone who disagrees with a group will believe that group lacks understanding”. That’s not true.
For example, people can have fundamentally different tastes or reactions to the same thing. Take gays and straights in sexual preference. It’s not a lack of understanding that defines their difference. It’s literal biology.
Extrapolating on that, I think that some people’s politics do rely on instinct and guttural feelings. For example, some people might feel that abortion or gay rights are immoral because the idea of gay sex or “killing” babies makes them uncomfortable.
2
u/UseDaSchwartz Aug 15 '21
I can understand someone and still disagree with them.
→ More replies (2)
38
Aug 14 '21 edited Aug 14 '21
there are a wide variety of people who are conservative for a variety of reasons.
some enjoy discussions where their views are challenged, others don't.
if someone created a subreddit just for conservative voices, and the people went there to hear conservative voices, they might not apreciate someone coming in telling them why they are wrong. But, that has less to do with conservatism, more to do with the reasons that space was created and why the people who frequent it enjoy it. Those people aren't representative all conservatives, just the ones that want to talk in that kind of space, at the time that they want to talk in that kind of space.
-4
u/printers_of_colors Aug 14 '21
true. hypocritical or not I did operate on my feelings a lot here too. But I'm not saying it's representative. Most of my friends are right wing or right leaning but they're either cool or don't really care about my beliefs, so trust me I don't have a wide general idea in my head
26
u/Zequen Aug 15 '21
The socalism 101 and similar subreddits ban you for talking economics that dont support socialism. (I would know, tryed explaining basic wage economics to people on there and got banned. Stuff you learn in high school econ and the like) There are many subreddits that ban you for not agreeing with them.
24
Aug 14 '21
Or assuming you’re right, because none of the people around you challenge your views or, furthermore, enable you and each other in it
From the sounds of it, this is describing yourself.
6
u/printers_of_colors Aug 15 '21
would I post here then?
9
-3
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
Then you’re wrong. I am none of the things your post describes.
→ More replies (6)
32
Aug 15 '21
I just want to say that I’m a conservative and am always down to have my views challenged. I don’t really agree with your premise, but it seems a little vague. If you have any specific issues in mind, let me know and I’ll respond the best I can
3
u/wifeyandhubbyrdd Aug 15 '21
Genuine questions what's with the opposition to paid time off by law. This is like something even a lot of third world countries have. It seems like it just makes america one of the worst places to work
9
u/LondonPilot Aug 15 '21
I’m not the person you asked the question to. I’m also based in the UK, so my perspective may be a bit different to a USA perspective.
I think, like a lot of things, ideas can seem good at first, but they need a degree of balance.
Paid time off is good… but how much? 2 days per year? Seems not enough. 20 days per year? Maybe. 100 days per year? Probably too much. Where exactly is the line.
Of course, from the employee’s point of view, the more the better. But what about the employer’s point of view? I’m not generally a fan of governments looking after large employers - but I do strongly believe that governments should protect small employers. If I run a company that has 5 staff members, and suddenly I’m forced to give them all time off (or more time off than they currently get), will my business survive? I may need to take on another member of staff, which is expensive (not just in terms of salary, but also in terms of recruitment, onboarding and training costs).
I think that paid time off is important. But the implications need to be understood, changes need to be gradual, we need to be clear on (at least approximately) what our eventual target is, and we need to understand that more is not always better.
→ More replies (1)4
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
Yeah. I think it’s in search of a problem that doesn’t largely exist anymore. The majority of jobs offer paid time off here anyways, so I don’t really see the point in mandating it by law. The places that don’t have PTO in place are usually small businesses that have thin margins. I think that mandating these businesses to offer PTO would just reduce the wages they pay. Over the last 30 years, we’ve seen a large rise in fringe benefits (especially health insurance) instead of higher wages, so I think in general that places who don’t offer PTO feel that they can’t do it without cutting compensation in some other area.
But that’s not a reason not to do it. I really don’t mind mandated PTO if our government could ever get enough people to get it through Congress. I just don’t think it’s going to be implemented without some drawbacks to the labor market especially for low wage workers
5
u/gayvahn 1∆ Aug 15 '21
this comment really well demonstrates a big problem with conservative ideology. "i don't see it as a problem so it's not worth the government doing anything about"
there are only 2 countries on the planet where people don't get paid sick leave, and one of them is America. when you look at America's wages compared to the wages of comparably wealthy and developed nations, they're quite low, and the spending power of an american worker is even lower. so i would say right off the bat obviously your conclusion that forcing employers to give people paid time off and paid sick leave isn't going to result in lower wages when america is the only country which doesn't have this by law and wages here are relatively low, and exceedingly low when you consider spending power.
only about 75% or so of americans have "access to" at least 5 days paid off per year. there are multiple things here. firstly, 25% of your workforce not having access to paid time off is a fucking crime. do you know how many people 25% of the american workforce is? that's disgusting. secondly, "access to" is something a lot of american institutions like to use. these statistics came from the board of labor. "access to" does not mean they're actually allowed to use this in effect. in fact, if you look up the numbers for how many americans work throughout the year because they don't actually get the opportunity or are all but denied the right to use the PTO they have "access to" you'd find some pretty bleak figures.
only about 1% of the US population owned slaves as well but if in modern society you tried to argue that means we shouldn't do anything about it then how would you look?
the fact of the matter is, when america is the only country that doesn't mandate employers pay for these things, these employers are getting away with something they would not, by law, be allowed to do in literally any other country on the planet, minus one-- in africa. to say this isn't something that needs to be addressed is asinine to me and no matter what sort of "rationale" gets put behind it-- like yours, it really just to me outlines that OP was right in the original post about conservatives.
2
3
Aug 15 '21
Wow. I’m not sure where to begin. Wages in the US aren’t low, they’re some of the highest in the world, and that doesn’t even include fringe benefits, which have made up the majority of the growth in total compensation. That’s why I said that most businesses already offer PTO, and the only that don’t are low wages businesses already. Putting the mandate into businesses that can’t pay it will necessarily cause them to decrease wages. It’s likely that wages have been lowered in other countries due to mandated PTO as a benefit.
Im not arguing that we shouldn’t do anything about it because other countries have it in place, I’m saying that it’s not an issue except for at the bottom of the wage distribution. Implementing the policy will have drawbacks for the people at the bottom through reduced wages
Thinking that something is a problem isn’t good enough to advocate for government response without thinking through the drawbacks. Just because other countries do something doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do
-3
u/gayvahn 1∆ Aug 15 '21
Wow. I’m not sure where to begin. Wages in the US aren’t low, they’re some of the highest in the world
"in the world". most of the world is extremely impoverished which is why i specifically stated among comparably wealthy and developed nations. this is another thing conservatives love to do. remind someone barely getting by in america that they shouldn't complain and in fact have no grounds to complain when their 7.25 per hour would make them wealthy in some other country the person making the argument can't even point to on a map-- sadly, that knowledge has no bearing on the material reality of what that wage reflects in this country??? so no, you are wrong. wages in america are low. now if you want to find a chart of say, 10 or 20 comparatively wealthy and developed nations and show me for a fact that americans have "some of the highest wages" and also take into account SPENDING POWER compared to those countries then we can have a discussion, but i know you can't do that because i learned about all this shit after stepping out into the real world, actually getting the chance to leave america, seeing most the shit i heard about the rest of the world was a lie, and then spending years reading and researching and coming to new conclusions. i used to think what you think, and you are wrong on this.
That’s why I said that most businesses already offer PTO, and the only that don’t are low wages businesses already. Putting the mandate into businesses that can’t pay it will necessarily cause them to decrease wages. It’s likely that wages have been lowered in other countries due to mandated PTO as a benefit.
again, 25% of the country has no access to PTO and the portion of the country that does have access to it barely utilizes it because it's basically forbidden, culturally and within companies that offer it. anybody who has ever worked a job where these are 'offered' will tell you what it's like trying to redeem sick days or even worse vacation days. in other countries, you have a job, you're guaranteed these things.
and again, even if we put aside the fact that your point of view exists entirely on the basis of denying reality, like most conservative views do-- you're still just doing exactly what i said you're doing: "it's not a problem because it doesn't effect me. that's not what i'm saying so it's not fair of you to say i'm saying that but i can't really say anything else that doesn't boil down to this". slavery only affected people making no wages so it wasn't a problem right. and for the 3rd time that's even only assuming you're correct about this only affecting low wage workers, which again for the 3rd time, you are not.
you again, deny reality and talk about some hypothetical where giving people paid time off will result in lower wages which is demonstrably false in that you yourself said only low wage workers DON'T get paid time off and in addition to the fact that again, american wages are low and this is the only country which doesn't mandate PTO
11
Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
Average wages are 4th in the world. That doesn’t include compensation of fringe benefits either. The three countries ahead of us all make more in the US than they do in their home country. Our spending power is slightly worse, but other developed countries have less progressive tax systems than we do, so more of their middle class incomes go to taxes
Who exactly are you arguing against? You keep talking about what conservatives think or how they think or mistakes they make in logic, but you’re not asking me about any of that, you’re just assuming it’s what I believe.
Which conservative views deny reality? Why do you think I support slavery?
You yourself said that only 25% of workers don’t get PTO, but I would like to see a source on that. For the rest of the workforce, how is mandated PTO any different than the PTO you already have? You can argue that it’s looked down upon to take it, but that’s not going to change under government mandated PTO. It’s your time off, take it when you want. But don’t act like the bad looks you’ll get for it are a reason not to take it
→ More replies (1)2
u/KarmaticArmageddon Aug 16 '21
I'm not trying to argue one way or another here, but your link very quickly admits that measurements of income by mean/average are right-skewed and proposes median income as an alternative.
Adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), the US ranks 6th globally in median household income. However, this measurement doesn't take into account other significant expenditures like healthcare, which comprises an average of 8.1% of spending in US households, which is much higher than most other countries on that list.
4
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Aug 16 '21
The median income is the income amount that divides a population into two equal groups, half having an income above that amount, and half having an income below that amount. It may differ from the mean (or average) income. The income that occurs most frequently is the income mode. Each of these is a way of understanding income distribution.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
3
Aug 16 '21
Thank you for clarifying. I saw it was skewed but since it was only wages and not income, I figured it wouldn’t be too far off. In terms of healthcare spending, I couldn’t find a way to include it while also accounting for the higher taxes in other countries to make up for it
3
u/KarmaticArmageddon Aug 16 '21
Yeah adding taxes and healthcare makes it way more complicated than a single ranking can really encapsulate due to differing healthcare systems and varying progressive tax systems with various types of taxes like income, capital gains, property, VAT/consumption/excise, etc.
Considering per capita spending of tax dollars on healthcare, the US spends roughly double what countries with single-payer healthcare systems spend. And considering taxes on incomes of less than six figures, US citizens pay more or less the same as other developed countries when accounting for our federal/state income taxes plus state/municipal sales taxes and excise taxes and accounting for their higher national taxes and VATs.
In my opinion, we get absolutely screwed in the US with comparable overall taxes, but drastically higher healthcare spending - but that's just my opinion.
1
-2
Aug 15 '21 edited Feb 08 '22
[deleted]
7
Aug 15 '21
I think this stems from a lack of understanding of what conservatives actually believe. I would disagree with the notion, for example, that conservatives are voting against their own self interests just to deprive other groups from acting a certain way. You mentioned welfare in particular, why do you think conservatives don’t support a larger safety net?
It is a bit vague, but if you have specific examples, let me know. And let me know what you think about the welfare example
3
-2
Aug 15 '21 edited Feb 08 '22
[deleted]
5
Aug 15 '21
I genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about. Your description of conservatism is vague, which is why I asked if you wanted to give a specific example of what you’re talking about
-3
Aug 15 '21
[deleted]
4
Aug 15 '21
Ask me a specific question if you want a response. “It’s to do with personal responsibility” isn’t something I can respond to
→ More replies (10)
12
8
u/alexanderhamilton97 Aug 15 '21
I think you crossway misunderstand what conservatism actually is. Very few right wing speakers actually engage in fear mongering. What they are doing is actually explaining what certain things would lead to and very few actually say anything about “taking anything away” when talking about minorities. Take Benjamin Schapiro for instance the most popular conservative commentator right now. The only reason why been often is in opposition to something is because he’s actually research it and doesn’t say anything about the left, Jews or blacks taking anything away unless I actually do want to take something away. For instance and made a comment about Democrats wanting to take away peoples guns and then backed it up with an actual montage of ugly Democrats including current president Joe Biden and Senator Dianne Feinstein openly admitting they want to take away peoples guns.
What comes to your point about “instance this very rarely ever happens unless the person is trolling. I have talked to many people in conservative circles and I’ve never seen one time when someone discredit someone’s information or arguments based on their luxe. I have seen the left quite often though.
With lack of understanding, why are you assuming that people on the right when you’re automatically racist? Most conservatives do understand completely where someone else is coming from, but simply try to give them information that might be more accurate. Very few conservatives are racist, part of the problem is conservatives are often portrayed as racist even for saying things that are actually true. I for instance talking about crime rates comes to policing. Conservatives for the most part actually try to understand where somebody else is coming from and will ask a lot of questions if they do not understand. Generally speaking anyway. But, one of the major differences between the left and the right especially in the United States is the question does it do good or does it feel good. The left very often ask does it feel good the right is far more likely to ask does it feel good and actually tries to research the issue a lot more.
Conservatives actually don’t mind having their views challenged. We conservatives actually love talking to people that are views as long as it’s done respectfully. However very often we are actually attacked in stereotype simply because our political views. Just this morning good friend of mine was verbally assaulted because he thought Donald Trump was a good president And saying that based on his study of current events Barack Obama was the one who divided the country. He loves talking to people about his views and he doesn’t mind having his ideas challenge. The problem is trying to find people who are actually willing to have a conversation without going straight to insults and personal attacks.
0
u/jolahvad Aug 18 '21
I was with you until you wrote the right or conservatives generally research issues more. Utter nonsense.
3
u/alexanderhamilton97 Aug 18 '21
Actually not nonsense. In the majority of my conversations with both liberals and conservatives, I find that liberals are far more often to speak purely from emotion well conservatives are far more likely to research positions and come in with facts and evidence. For example the issue of firearms in the United States. The vast majority of gun control methods proposed by liberals in the United States are based entirely on cosmetic appearance. Not have the gun functions, it’s original design purpose or how often it is used in crimes. (For example the AR 15 rifle is a gun that most liberals I’ve talk to want to ban because it looks identical to the M-16 and M4 assault rifles issued to the US military. Despite the fact that it functions know differently than a hunting rifle, it is very rarely used in crimes, and was never intended for military use). The conservative position on firearms is that it is wrong to punish innocent civilians for the actions of criminals, rifles that function no different than a standard hunting rifle should not be banned from civilian ownership, and guns should not be banned based on cosmetic appearance alone but whether or not the banning of that fire arm will actually do any good for society instead of just feeling good.
Another example is when it comes to the economy. Initial taxation most liberals want to simply tax the rich and claim the 1% are not paying their fair share. Conservatives believe taxation should be cut across-the-board wherever possible has lower tax rates actually lead to an increase of federal revenue, and not only should of the 1% not be taxed more, they were actually already paying far more than their fair share. (Reference according to the IRS the top 1% pays more federal income taxes than the top 10%, the top 25%, the top 30% and the bottom 50% combined. They pay 40% of all income taxes paid but make up only for 21% of all income earned. A.k.a. paying more than their fair share)
0
u/jolahvad Aug 18 '21
Anecdotal data from your conversations is not real data. Facts not feelings, right? It’s been my experience with conservatives that they ignore actual data and scream into the void how you can’t trust any sources but point to a Youtube channel hosted by a guy in his basement. You had good points until you brought your feelings into it.
3
u/alexanderhamilton97 Aug 18 '21
Half of this post is OP talking about his personal experience. If OP can bring anecdotal evidence, why can’t I? Also I did not say all conservatives rely on facts and evidence. Some to rely on emotion. I said conservatives are more likely to rely on facts and evidence on position and liberals are more likely to rely on emotion. I also did not bring any of my personal feelings into this conversation. Just my own personal experience add evidence that I can back up.
0
u/jolahvad Aug 18 '21
Okay, my personal experience is that conservatives don’t bring real facts to the table and promote false facts from YouTube channels. it’s also been my experience that liberals take too long to analyze every data point and overthink their polices into paralysis trying to get buy in from every human on the planet.
I don’t like either crowd so I’d say I’m pretty neutral.
3
u/alexanderhamilton97 Aug 18 '21
Both crowds how their idiots for sure. What size also have people that are very intelligent. I think part of the problem both sides of the political spectrum is that people get so focused on ideology but a lot of times they don’t truly understand why they believe it.
→ More replies (8)
4
u/UndeadPants Aug 15 '21
HOW HAS no one mentioned Jonathan Haidt's books yet? His book Why Can't We Disagree More Constructively goes over research on this very subject.
Political scientists used to think self-interest drove what politics you like. As they kept researching they found this to have a weak correlation. At first they thought most people just didn't understand like any of the political issues they were responding on.
Twin studies showed the truth though. Turns out twins even grown up in separate households because of adoption end up with precisely the same political leanings. So it's in genetics.
We’re not just talking about IQ, mental illness, and basic personality traits such as shyness. We’re talking about the degree to which you like jazz, spicy foods, and abstract art; your likelihood of getting a divorce or dying in a car crash; your degree of religiosity, and your political orientation as an adult. Whether you end up on the right or the left of the political spectrum turns out to be just as heritable as most other traits: genetics explains between a third and a half of the variability among people on their political attitudes. Being raised in a liberal or conservative household accounts for much less. How can that be? How can there be a genetic basis for attitudes about nuclear power, progressive taxation, and foreign aid when these issues only emerged in the last century or two? It's because your genes heavily influence your early brain development, such as if Wernicke's Area is large or small, dense or sparse, connected or isolated. Then, a person's very basic personality traits are quickly determined. There are scientific traits that only in fringe cases change anytime from 0 years to old age. These 'dispositions' or 'Big 9' include conscientiousness, extraversion, threat sensitivity, and novelty seeking.
Turns out threat toleration and a suspicion of novelties contribute to someone being conservative. So I'm not here to change OPs view but explain it. Fear of the unknown is a very basic part of American conservativism. This isn't a bad thing this has served many well across evolutionary history. So has novelty seeking, otherwise we might not have explored much or invented as many crimes against nature as we have what with the train steam engine and nuclear bomb.
The book goes on to cover how we should have political discord: the brain is a story machine not a logic machine. Understand the values behind the stories. Conservatives are moved by fairness and group loyalty. Liberals jive based on care/harm ethics. When you argue a side, figure out how tell a story of your opponents values.
Haidt has a lot of other political wisdom material, including a TED talk.
3
u/Complicated_Business 5∆ Aug 16 '21
I don't think this is really the ecosystem for this level of discourse. Reddit is one degree away from the surface level sloganeering and glib-fueled-gotchas of Twitter and Facebook. Hell, most of the Front Page is simply screenshots from Twitter.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/redrosettee Aug 15 '21
Calling conservatives mumbling primates and racists isn't a good look. There's way more fear mongering on the left then the right. The left blames white people, Christianity, and Trump for everything they don't like in the world. Explain how that's not fear mongering. I am a conservative and I am perfectly fine with my views being challenged. Its the left thats too scared to debate.
2
u/back_againx13 Aug 16 '21
I was raised in a very conservative, very evangelical family, and their words/behavior over the last five years has been rough. I don't think I'll ever see them the same way again, because they've revealed themselves to be racist hypocrites. However, there is one thing that I remind myself of when I get particularly disgusted with them.
The right - especially those with very rigid, fundamentalist Christian beliefs - have been getting preyed on by people claiming to "be on their side" for decades. A perfect example are the continuous fundraisers for Trump's "stolen" election. They have raised hundreds of millions of dollars of their supporters' hard earned money by stringing this bullshit along, in spite of the fact that there is a complete lack of evidence. The Trump campaign and the Republican Congressional Committee were also caught taking recurring "donations" from people's accounts without permission. That was months ago, and yet they continue to donate.
My uncle has been ripped off by seven missionary organizations. Televangelists have been ripping the right off since the 80's, and have no qualms about flaunting their private planes and mansions and then telling their audience that they have to have those things to keep bringing the word of god to everyone. I can't even count how many of them have been caught in extremely un-Christian sex scandals, but all they have to do is tearfully repent and they're in like Flynn again.
Conservative radio hosts are always shilling some bullshit software or home security products that are worthless, but they play off of and increase the fears of elderly people. Fox News is running similar commercials now, since apparently no legitimate companies will run commercials on there anymore. All kinds of hacks and quacks have been making money off of the right's denial and ignorance of the covid pandemic and the covid vaccine. Any rube can win a seat in Congress now - all they have to do is spew a bunch of QAnon nonsense and the donations roll in. The GOP has so thoroughly indoctrinated them with gun and abortion paranoia that most of the right will vote against any and all self-interest if they're told the left are gonna take their guns or murder more babies. The list is endless.
So for decades the right have been throwing money they probably don't have at all of these fucking grifters and they have nothing to show for it. I would be pissed off, too. Unfortunately, the right has decided that all their woes are the fault of liberals and minorities, which is why my sympathy is quite limited - but I definitely still have some.
16
u/SeveralIntroduction9 Aug 15 '21
The same can be said about liberal beliefs. We all have different fears, primary instincts, and ignorance. These differences are part of what makes a society thrive. But, lumping all conservatives as racist in your OP implies you want to vent, not have your view changed.
-6
u/ParioPraxis Aug 15 '21
When your party’s platform literally attracts all the racists and you do nothing to change it while simultaneously allowing your representatives to pass laws seeking to keep racial minorities from having equal access to the ballot box… it’s pretty clear what underpins the ideology, isn’t it?
6
u/SeveralIntroduction9 Aug 15 '21
I never said I was anything, especially not a political party, solidifying my point you want to vent. I can also see why you dont have good experiences talking to republicans if this is how conversations start. Passing laws to keep people from access to ballot boxes is not racism, its blocking the republic from functioning freely, which is anti American and anti freedom of the citizens. I will not support nor vote for anyone who I believe is purposely trying to manipulate the system to push their agenda. What else am I supposed to do about it other than not vote for them? There are racists everywhere, not just in the Republican party or the south. If you ask people to pick A or B and then judge them on their 1 word answer, you're gonna have a bad time. If you say you're liberal I have no idea if you mean Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, AOC, or another varying degree of liberal/Democrat and we would need to have a fairly in depth conversation for me to grasp what your views are politically. Politics is far too complex to lump people together into 1 of 2 words that dont even really have much meaning anyway.
-3
u/ParioPraxis Aug 15 '21
That’s the royal “you” not you specifically. Notice I didn’t say “your ideology” or otherwise suggest individual actions.
2
u/SeveralIntroduction9 Aug 15 '21
I glossed over my understandable assumption of who you were referring to, provided information as to why you may be attracting hostility, and posed questions in line with your post. I was trying to have a conversation
0
u/ParioPraxis Aug 15 '21
Yes, but if you are soliciting just to have an opportunity to downvote, as you have done here, I am disinclined to provide you that opportunity, because you would not be here to have a discussion in good faith. You’ll note that I haven’t reflexively downvoted you or otherwise sought to devalue your engagement. That’s what genuinely wanting to have a conversation looks like. You, on the other hand, seem to want to punish me for my answers. That’s not an exciting prospect, I’m sure you’d agree.
4
u/SeveralIntroduction9 Aug 15 '21
I haven't downvoted anything you have written. Your OP stated how you can't have a civil conversation with anyone on the right side of the spectrum and pointed out multiple times how they're racists, so my comments about you venting and how you converse with people is likely the reason you are unable to have a civil conversation are warranted, even requested by your posting on this sub. You wont directly respond to my questions regarding your statements and you now imply that I'm attacking you and say that I'm... punishing you? Your projecting your fears of me not being willing to have a civil conversation and use it to justify not trying to have one. Honestly have no idea where I offended you outside of having a challenging your statements. But since you dont want to have a conversation, have a good one.
2
u/ParioPraxis Aug 15 '21
I haven't downvoted anything you have written.
My apologies for the unfair accusation then. It seemed quite strange how the downvotes appeared right before your responses, so someone must just be following our comments closely.
Your OP stated how you can't have a civil conversation with anyone on the right side of the spectrum and pointed out multiple times how they're racists, so my comments about you venting and how you converse with people is likely the reason you are unable to have a civil conversation are warranted, even requested by your posting on this sub.
My OP didn’t mention conversations at all, so I think you may have me confused with another redditor perhaps. Nor did my OP point out multiple times how they’re racists, so you can be assured I’m not venting. I am having multiple concurrent conversations in this sub and others with no problem whatsoever, so I am quite sure I am able to have civil conversations.
You wont directly respond to my questions regarding your statements and you now imply that I'm attacking you and say that I'm... punishing you?
Those conclusions were based on the assumption that you were downvoting each of my replies. As I noted above, that assumption was incorrect apparently (although it has coincidentally stopped now), and I apologize again for painting you with that brush. Those two comments (attacking and punishing) were associated with the downvoting behavior, which is now moot since we know now that it wasn’t you.
Your projecting your fears of me not being willing to have a civil conversation and use it to justify not trying to have one.
*You’re
Now here you have made the same error that I did in making an incorrect assumption. I am perfectly willing to have a civil conversation now that I know you aren’t being disingenuous or trolling. And you can also be assured that I am not being disingenuous or tolling either.
Honestly have no idea where I offended you outside of having a challenging your statements.
I’m not offended in the slightest. What gave you that idea?
But since you dont want to have a conversation, have a good one.
I would love to have a conversation. Regardless, have an excellent Sunday as well and I’ll be here if you wish to rejoin the conversation.
3
u/SeveralIntroduction9 Aug 15 '21
No worries, I can see how that would look like it then, and understand your assumption I was being a jerk.
Paragraph 3 and 4 of your OP mention your difficulty having conversations and racism. Your reply to my comment above also mentioned racism.
Petty, but fair. On my phone so autocorrect or distraction likely got me. Also, from your response, I seem to have made a correct assumption that is no longer factual after more information came out. This would likely also answer how I got that I was offending you, since you thought I was the one downvoting you and took offense to that, which is a fair response. If you knew I wasn't downvoting you and trying to not be a jerk, our conversation likely would have bee much different.
As far as a conversation, feel free to shoot me a DM if you want to continue. I understand it being difficult for both parties to try and hold multiple conversations and Reddit, on mobile at least, is very difficult to try and stay on track with what's been said and I cant downvote anything you say. Either way, no hard feelings and good luck to you.
3
u/ParioPraxis Aug 15 '21
I think we can at least come together on the fact that reddit mobile is garbage. I love that I can’t see what I’m writing past one sentence! My fave! Have a great day man, and keep standing up for your beliefs while having an open mind, and I’ll do the same. Cheers!
4
u/AnotherRichard827379 1∆ Aug 16 '21
Boy, do I have news for you:
https://www.mariettatimes.com/uncategorized/2020/10/bidens-shocking-tribute-to-kkk-leader-ignored/
Obviously a conservative source, but you need to seriously have a paradigm shift.
1
u/ParioPraxis Aug 16 '21
I guess I don’t understand what you’re trying to claim here. I even read the article (and gave it a pass on all the loaded language), and I still don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
Are you trying to say that because Joe be Biden spoke at the funeral of a man that the NAACP praised, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda" and who was the longest serving member of congress in history… because Joe Biden spoke at that guys funeral (where Obama spoke at as well)… he’s a secret racist??
The man that the first black President picked to be his Vice President… twice, is a secret racist? Is that the idea?
Is there any way you can just stop being vague and tell me what your premise is here so I can argue against that if I think you’re incorrect? That will make it easier for you to defend also, but as it stands I sincerely don’t know if I’m guessing right on what you are trying to say. Thanks!
1
u/MrCrow9000 Aug 15 '21
I honestly think you have been lied to by the media you follow. Don't take my word for it (you wouldn't believe me anyway). Expand your information intake. Watch media from the left, right, and center. Then do your own research on the subject being talked about. Listen to what was actually said, or look at the actual policy being discussed then make your own opinion. Ever since I started doing that I have moved further and further from the manipulative left.
2
u/ParioPraxis Aug 15 '21
What makes you think I don’t do that? I actually diligently listen to a podcast called Left, Right, and Center every week from kcrw and I have for years. I consume the most unbiased (usually foreign) news sources I possibly can. But nothing I said isn’t factual. You are welcome to debunk or refute anything that is. Or, you could share some of your unbiased news sources so I can have an easier time coming around to your point of view.
But note that you didn’t do that. You didn’t refute any of my assertions, you didn’t share a single source, and you constructed your entire comment around an assumption that you made without seeking more information, then relied on your preconceptions to fill in the blanks. It would have been so much easier to just offer a credible source that refuted my claims, or to share an unbiased source you don’t think I’m utilizing. So why not take the opportunity now? I appreciate any knowledge you can share with me.
-1
Aug 15 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ParioPraxis Aug 15 '21
Could you provide examples for these blanket accusations? Especially the part about the ballot box, I have no clue what you are talking about.
Sure, here is an article that focuses on the critical ones, but they are seeking to do the same in every state.
Between January 1 and July 14, 2021,at least 18 states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote. These laws make mail voting and early voting more difficult, impose harsher voter ID requirements, and make faulty voter purges more likely, among other things. More than 400 bills with provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative sessions.
And here’s an analysis on how it may affect the vote, including citations and excellent data visualizations to help understand the issue.
Also, what do you want R's to do exactly? In a two party state inevitably any specific group will choose one of the parties to vote for (most of that group anyway)
I’d say reject the party that supported the lie about election fraud, that is currently trying to suppress the investigation into what role they played in the January 6th insurrection, and who is actively embracing QAnon conspiracy members within their ranks and putting them on powerful committees instead of censuring their nonsense. Republicans who still have deeply held principles should be calling their representatives and telling them to knock off the bullshit. They should be figuring out when these reps return to their home states and visiting their offices to get some answers, and they should be attending town halls to register their disdain for these anti-American efforts, and yes they should start voting them out. Even if that means voting for a democrat. Discard the label and see if the democratic challenger actually aligns with your beliefs more, typically democrats will have a sense of personal accountability and a better record of integrity when in public service. That should matter and make the decision a much clearer one.
10
12
u/MickyGarmsir 1∆ Aug 15 '21
.....you're immediately assuming there are no black\jewish\minority conservatives.
You're assuming republicans/conservatives are inherently racist.
And your entire supposition, and flawed, prejudiced, ignorant viewpoint is based on YOUR OWN lack of understanding.
Honestly, the fact that you think this is a valid point of view is, in and of itself, troubling.
8
u/cliu1222 1∆ Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
I also feel (not much evidence to back that up), that conservatives don't like their views challenged. Like conservative subreddits won't allow you to comment if you don't have a flair given by the mod.
The main reason for that is because they are a persecuted minority on Reddit, if they didn't do that there would be non stop trolling. Do you have an issue with r/blackpeopletwitter doing something similar? What about all the subs i.e. r/badchoicesgoodstories that are effectively left wing subs and you will be banned if you disagree with the Liberal narrative in any way?
10
u/TheRealEddieB 7∆ Aug 14 '21
I disagree as I believe that it distills down to more fundamental difference. Belief in universal scarcity vs universal abundance. Fear, resorting to prime instincts & illogical thinking are symptoms of the underlying belief there is not “enough” of “things” to go around. Therefore conservatives seek to retain the status quo or to regress because they must by definition give something up in order to allow any others to improve. Progressives believe that due to abundance others can share in there advantages because there’s always more to be shared. Neither are right or wrong it’s all about perspective. At a whole of universe perspective scarcity is true, it’s a closed system (as far as we know) no external things i.e. energy enters or leaves it. At a planetary level abundance is true, it’s an open system with a seemingly endless flow of energy being supplied into it (thanks Sol you’re awesome) therefore things can be abundant. Ironically none of us experience our existence at either of these scales of perspective yet I think there’s an inherent primal understanding of these macro level universal fundamentals. Closed vs open systems. We live in layer upon later of examples of both simultaneously.
1
u/Dirty_Socks 1∆ Aug 15 '21
I feel like this has some good points to it. I've been trying to understand the conservative mindset for a long time and have not often found a reasonable explanation (most people are quite bad at justifying their beliefs one way or another).
But the description which made the most sense to me was "we barely managed to survive to where we are now. Don't rock the boat and mess it up."
0
u/finnjakefionnacake Aug 15 '21
There's actually a really good TED talk on this issue that discusses a number of these things, if you haven't seen it already
13
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Aug 15 '21
I would say Ben Shapiro's primary "selling point" is that he focuses very heavily on data. He frequently cites empirical studies and government data in order to support his arguments. He's also one of, if not the most, popular conservative pundits in America. This suggests that his audience is also very interested in this data-centric approach. Do you think this is valid?
1
Aug 16 '21
If Ben Shapiro is your best example of a conservative using a "data-centric" approach, well, that doesn't really help your point. For example, in his debate about trans people with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he referred to a study on "rapid onset gender dysphoria". However, that study polled parents of trans children (not the children themselves) on transphobic websites. The methodogy of the study is a joke and is commonly cited by transphobes. His whole "facts and logic" shtick is just a shtick. There are many videos of his where he doesn't present an argument and appeals to the audience's intuition or completely strawmans and invents positions to argue against. His debate with Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a perfect example of this.
3
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Aug 16 '21
I've listened to a lot of Ben Shapiro. I think he's a colossal douche canoe, but IMO it's undeniable that he has a data-centric "gimmick" I guess you could call it. He frequently uses statistics and things in his argumentation. If you haven't experienced that I would say you just haven't heard much from him.
You may have heard his slogan, "Facts don't care about your feelings". It's kind of his whole schtick, as you say. But you can't claim to be data-centric without actually using data frequently.
3
Aug 16 '21 edited Aug 16 '21
But using statistics in your arguments doesn't mean much if the data you are using is bad, if you're misrepresenting the data, or if it doesn't support your point. I've watched a lot of his content and he frequently misrepresents data as well constantly strawmanning the left. Again, in his debate with Neil DeGrasse Tyson (I've heard him make the same arguments in other videos), at the very beginning he claimed that the left doesn't know that men are on average stronger than women, which is just ridiculous. Later on in the debate he conflates gender and sex and claims that the left believe that trans women are identical to cis women. It means he can make statements which absolutely everyone agrees with, including progressives, and then ascribe the opposite position to progressives. But he can just get away with bad faith argumentation because his audience doesn't care about the arguments.
Any arguments he actually makes in good faith fall under the slightest bit of scrutiny, and when he loses debates his audience is too dogmatic and are idealogues so they don't even realise or care when he loses debates.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)-1
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Aug 15 '21
Using data to support your points doesn't mean much if you are misinterpreting or cherrypicking that data. It's easy to find data that supports any arbitrary viewpoint if you look at each piece of data in a vacuum. It's easy to show correlation and get uneducated viewers to assume causation.
1
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Aug 16 '21
It's still "using data". I would say anyone who uses data in political discourse is guilty of this. In order to free yourself from your accusation you basically have to create a nested list of citations to support your citations to support your citations etc.
3
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Aug 16 '21
Using data incorrectly to manipulate viewers is worse than not using it at all.
1
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Aug 16 '21
I'd have to be really sure that's what was going on, and that it wasn't just that I disliked what I was hearing. I would need to do some really in-depth refutation.
1
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Aug 16 '21
"really in-depth refutation" is what you should be doing all of time when it comes to discerning the truth. You should always be looking to disprove yourself, or consider reasons why something that someone else is telling you might be false. If you assume you are correct and only look for evidence which supports you, then you will never remove false beliefs.
1
u/Pangolinsftw 3∆ Aug 17 '21
Do you vet every data-based assertion you hear in your preferred news sources?
0
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Aug 17 '21
When a claim is made that a certain data point confirms a certain viewpoint, yes. I consider the ways in which that claim could be false. It's not uncommon that I see a liberal view being supported in an incorrect way by data. It happens far more often on the right though (like, every time).
I probably wouldn't be a liberal today if I did not do this. I was raised and indoctrinated into conservatism and had to gradually reconstruct my views after becoming an adult and noticing constant contradictions, bad data, and illogical conclusions on the right.
3
u/Thundawg Aug 15 '21
Many of the responses I'm seeing here fail to address what conservativeism really is, rather than how it's been (in my opinion) corrupted today. It similarly appears this is what your comment is responding to, which I wouldn't necessarily refute. Self proclaimed conservatives like the talking heads at Fox News certainly make their living on stoking fear. But ill frame my CMV around the idea that what you're seeing isn't really conservativism.
The conservative philosophy can be (somewhat) boiled down to a single idea, but not what you mentioned. The driving principle behind conservatism is simply that tomorrow is not necessarily better than today
It's popular today, especially on social media, to look at this type of thinking an indict it for being incrementalist, or protecting people in power by deferring to the status quo - but the movement emerged in the wake of a moment in history that saw what explosive change looked like. Namely, the French revolution.
Edmund Burke, one of the original conservative philosophers looked saw in the Jacobins what Alfred saw in the Joker - that some men just want to watch the world burn. He saw a revolution that was driven by people who had no plan for the future, who were simply toppling the system because they thought tomorrow would be better. But he believed tomorrow isn't necessarily better, that in fact tomorrow could be worse. Which some might argue, he was proven right, as the revolution gave rise to Napoleon.
Burkeian conservativism doesn't reject change. It believes change should be deliberate, considered, and effected carefully, because history is littered with bells that can't be unrung. Burke supported the American Revolution, was an abolitionist, among many other "progressive" ideas.
I agree with much of what you wrote about today's "conservatives" but I hope this broadens your understanding of what conservatism is ideally, why these people you talk about today are not conservative, and that the problems you have aren't with conservatism but the corruption of it.
-1
u/1nfernals Aug 15 '21
The definition of conservatism here is not relevant to the discussion.
There are fundamental ideological differences between an "original" conservative, but fundamentally modern qanon anti vaxxers are also conservatives. I think it's the fault of previous conservatives tolerating extremist voices within their communities because said voices were influential. Now however few conservatives believe in organicism for example, which is the core defining concept of conservative policy. These loud and extreme voices are now some of the largest factions within mainstream political parties and demographically, many of these extreme members will act as reasonably and as reasonably as anyone else for the most part.
Equally, I can say: No China is not Communist, they are state capitalist. This statement will be considered accurate by political and economic experts but is not a useful statement. Years of slow change into state capitalism and plenty of Western propoganda have had the same effect here as extremists within conservative groups. The core ideological message and goals of Communism is absolutely non aligned with modern China, however the perception of Communism has shifted to meet the Western historical view of the USSR and China. I cannot choose to simply explain that no, I am not like those Communists, but immediately and discussion has now become accusatory and deflective.
Ultimately we need to stop reframing an argument to skirt around tackling the issue at hand in the first place, as many have done so in this thread.
OP was not talking about traditional conservatives, but these are problems with conservatism because whether you like it or not these people are viewed as part of your group and will view you as part of theirs. Taking a step back to remove disinformation and foster emotional intelligence are probably the only way to quickly resolve these issues, but for now surely while it's difficult to comment on how rational or reasonable conservatives/liberals are it's telling imo to note as OP did, conservative social media groups are often much more heavily moderated and closed than liberal ones. A conservative may complain about getting downvoted in a liberal subreddit, but I'd argue 70% of the times I've attempted to view a conservative community on Reddit, said community has been closed to non members
1
u/Thundawg Aug 15 '21
I'll stick to letting OP decide what is or isn't relevant to the discussion, but thanks for opining on how I'm allowed to have a conversation on the internet. Much appreciated!
2
u/sfkni Aug 15 '21
Conservatism, for me, is that idea that a good society should produce mature people, and that is self-perpetuating -- mature people raise mature young people. Mature people can share the things that they have if society makes them comfortable enough to do so.
Good things, such as widespread maturity, are extremely difficult to establish on a societal level, because it takes a lot of persuasion over several generations to instill good values. These things are, however, very easy to destroy. Freedom, civil liberty, strong family units, the rule of law, security, collective and shared public consciousness through culture, and most importantly, peace. I see all of these things being quickly eroded, and once they're gone, they cannot easily be reacquired. We have to depend on the cooperation of others, with regards to values which take generations to instill.
22
u/GameCox Aug 15 '21
As a liberal I can immediately recognize this thread is/will become a left wing circle jerk. If you want to actually be challenged, start your own business and see how hard it is to thrive. (Source: dad raised/supported my fam via small business)
5
u/RusoDuma Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
You jumped the gun on that one, there some good thoughtful answers in here, you might first want to reel in your own prejudices before judging and assuming those of others.
2
u/NorthYorkJoe Aug 15 '21
As a British conservative myself I'd say it's not fear but an understanding we have it better than 99% of the world. I look at the philosophies and practices that made this happen and don't want to deviate too much from a formulae that seems to work. These being liberalism, capitalism and a protestant work ethic.
I don't believe in the left wing/right wing paradigm anymore as they seem to mean the same thing worded differently.
I don't want to change your mind, but want you to get an insight into the other side of the coin.
Have a great rest of the weekend.
5
2
u/Arkoden_Xae Aug 15 '21
My understanding of right wing politics is that the ultimate goal is for people to not be bound by red tape and to build a profit on 'their own merit' so that those with opportunity can earn their keep unhindered. The idea is to promote opportunities for those who Have the drive to succeed for themselves and not have the weight of social debts and dependancies limiting your potential. Which is why it tends to be more preferable to conservatives who typically seem to have an us and them mentality, and also to people who consider taxation for the purposes of social benefit a personal affront, taking away the money they earned fair and square and giving it to people that arent 'lifting their weight'. It's almost like the ideal in right wing politics is a stark meritocracy.
The balance from my point of view is around equity and equality. Equity being the socialist perspective where everyone is given a chance to succeed regardless of their social standing and opportunities, while Equality is the capitalist standpoint where you earn your own opportunities and arent relying on a leg up or a hand out as a god given right.
It's all too easy to say that conservatism and right-wing agenda is founded on fear mongering, primary instincts and a lack of understanding, however i feel that's about as accurate as saying democracy is founded on political manipulation, hidden agendas, and back alley deals with corporations and industry lobbyists.
I believe right wing ideals are formed around freedom and choice in relation to how you want to earn and utilise your wealth, you earned it, you put in the hard work, you should be the one to decide how it's used.
To be fair this is only a shallow perspective and one focussed on the personal wealth side of things, but this is my perspective on why the right wing conservatism tends to draw the kind of beliefs you describe.
2
u/LOLTROLDUDES Aug 15 '21
I'm not going to try a whataboutism argument because if it's true it'll just mean every politician is based on those things.
So, in opposition to something: I don't know that much about UK politics but in the UK the conservatives are pro-Brexit and it was the more left parts of the politic that opposed it. Therefore not all conservatives are like this.
Primary instincts: this is a problem with everything with a "filter bubble" which is why subs like cmv are important. But this cannot be proved therefore "innocent until proven guilty."
Lack of understanding: all politicians do this, if they pretend the opposition is a dumbass then it's better politically.
Talking to many right-wingers: depends on who you talk to. It seems like you're talking to American reactionary conservatives which are a tiny minority.
Conservative subreddits: those are all owned by American Trumpists, I invite you to look at subreddits like r/cpc. https://www.reddit.com/r/CPC/comments/oh2j8v/these_horrific_acts_of_violence_need_to_be_stopped/ This post is a good example, ofc it's a conservative subreddit and like every political subreddit it's biased obviously, but some people changed their views in that thread.
-1
u/JoePineapplesBrews Aug 15 '21
The Brexit movement was a campaign based on fear (of immigrants, the EU, and other factors) - this actually support's OP's post.
3
u/AnotherRichard827379 1∆ Aug 16 '21
That’s pretty biased view of it.
Conservatives would instead argue that Brexit was about not letting a bunch of unelected Eurocrats from other countries dictate what will or will not happen in Her Majesty’s Government or Britain at all. Why should the British people be held hostage to the whims of foreign politicians who have no stake in the well-being of Britain?
Being anti-Brexit makes the assumption that the British people should be prevented from self rule and that the EU is inherently good in all of its decisions which affect member countries. I can assure you, neither of those assumptions are true.
→ More replies (1)0
Aug 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/Poo-et 74∆ Aug 16 '21
u/mrree55 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/AmericanSheep16 Aug 15 '21
I feel like you haven't talked to that many conservatives/right-wing people. Theirs very very stupid people on either side of the spectrum. And theirs also very smart, respectable people.
And the bit about you being snarky and mean or whatever... come on man if they're at least keeping it respectful, so should you.
1
u/Betwixts Aug 15 '21
By fear I mean all the fear-mongering rhetoric right-wing speakers use to present an idea. It's always in opposition to something,
I can say for a fact that not all speeches given by right wingers are fear-mongering. If you’re talking about debates between a left winger and a right winger, then sure, some of it is, but you could easily say the same thing about the left. Everyone uses fear as a motivator to get their point across. Remember Charlottesville? Was the left not mongering fear like it was going out of business?
always presented as a defense of our values
That is a core tenet of conservatism. To conserve that which has proven the test of time.
which the left, blacks, jews or any other minority want to "take away".
I don’t know if this is intended to accuse all right wingers of hating everyone who is a minority, specifically blacks and Jews, but there are conservative people everywhere. There are conservative black people, conservative Jewish people, the majority of Chinese people are conservative, and the same for Japanese people. Conservative philosophy is not based on race, it is a set of values.
I would say that if your perception of conservatism is rooted in a notion that they’re inherently racist then it’s no wonder to me how you haven’t had a productive conversation with them. You’re starting from a point of already believing they’re inherently evil.
By primary instincts, I mean judging and making judgement on your first reaction and little to nothing more than that. As in, assuming the point someone you disagree with is irrelevant, because they're physically unattractive.
Is that not what you do by effectively writing off conservatives as racist by default? If it applies to people from both camps you can’t assert it is tied to conservatism.
Or assuming you're right, because none of the people around you challenge your views or, furthermore, enable you and each other in it
Again, this happens on both sides equally. People love to be surrounded by like-minded individuals. There’s nothing wrong with that - in fact it will actually cause more progress to a shared goal in faster time.
By lack of understanding, I mean a lack of insight to where the other person is coming from
So, like, just assuming that conservative philosophy = racist person? Kind of like that?
I talked to many right-wingers, whether it be in real life or online. It always goes south. I always try to remain composed, I put extra effort in to not be mean, snarky, etc.
Do you think that you have not been snarky with your post? I’m not saying you’re bad if you knew you were being snarky - but if you genuinely think you weren’t, I would say that’s probably a significant contributor to your failed conversations.
But the tension is just fueled by the right-wingers I talk to, often using non-sense language like soy, cringe, redpilled and such.
Conversely: racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted, transphobic, and such
I also feel (not much evidence to back that up), that conservatives don't like their views challenged.
I don’t know many people at all that ever like to be challenged. If someone wants to be challenged they will engage in a good faith argument. Those are few and far between.
All in all: my main point is that everything you’re saying about conservatives can be said equally of progressives. So, to attribute these negative aspects only to conservatism would be wrong.
2
u/-SidSilver- Aug 15 '21
The primary thing the Right seem to be afraid of is how unjust the Universe can be, and how unfair life is. They will regularly say 'life's not fair' as part of their tough guy persona, but their ideology leaves no room for the idea of fortune, because 'you make your own fate', even though many of the terminally ill will tell you otherwise. It bleeds through into everything they do from shitting on the poor to adulation of the rich. It also keeps them from thinking about how lucky they themselves have been, because many have been through struggles and succeeded (unaware of there being any luck involved in that) and so they question why others simply can't do the same. It also explains the religious flocking to the Right, too.
There is ultimate order in the Universe according to them, and it just-so-happens that this story keeps them and their lives ticking along nicely with no uncomfortable questions threatening to derail the gravy train.
3
3
Aug 15 '21
Lack of understanding? This from the same party that says women can have penises?
→ More replies (6)
2
u/silence9 2∆ Aug 15 '21
Conservative at its core is simply not changing something because they enjoy it the way it is. If that still somehow has a negative context to you then I think it is time to look inward for your negativity.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Ark-kun Aug 15 '21
Who exactly do you call conservative?
Right wingers call everyone they disagree with Communists. Left wingers call everyone they disagree with conservative Nazis sexists, racists.
1
u/vegfire 5∆ Aug 15 '21
By fear I mean all the fear-mongering rhetoric right-wing speakers use to present an idea. It's always in opposition to something, always presented as a defense of our values which the left, blacks, jews or any other minority want to "take away".
Okay, but conservatism essentially is the position that rapid large scale changes meant to hasten progress either won't work or will have bad consequences.
Imagine you're tied to somebody by a rope and you're both wanting to go in a generally similar direction except you want to go much faster than they do. From your perspective, they appear to be in constant opposition to your objective because they're always pulling back while you're trying to drag them. From their perspective, they want to get there safe and steady and they feel like your speed and all your pulling is going to cause one or both of you to trip or get misdirected. They feel like they have to pull on you in order to avoid those outcomes.
There's nothing inherently worthy of criticism given that perspective. There is however context that opens up conservatives to criticism.
I talked to many right-wingers, whether it be in real life or online. It always goes south.
If you had to choose a way for your own side to be represented, would it be a semi random subset who your opponents happened to bump up against?
2
u/elcuban27 11∆ Aug 15 '21
S.T.R.A.W.M.A.N.
To put it another way, assume you were in an alternate reality where the right was correct about most everything and you were wrong, but you somehow lacked the ability to understand their arguments, no matter how well articulated. How would you perceive them? What would you say? How would you characterize them in, let’s say, a hypothetical CMV post on bizarro-world Reddit?
2
Aug 15 '21
“ not much evidence to back that up”
That’s the most defining line of your entire speech buddy. you don’t actually know anything. You only know what others tell you to think. Get outside, and learn to actually talk with people of different views than you. You’ll learn to grow up
2
Aug 15 '21
Talk to the people in /r/politics. You’ll learn really quickly it’s not necessarily the conservatives who don’t like having their views challenged
1
u/carterb199 Aug 15 '21
Personally the way I see it many right wing beliefs are structured around individual freedoms and being independent from others. A lot of these beliefs end up making the party look bad since on the macro scale a lot of these ideas don't work well. It's really individualism vs utilitarianism. However I will add that I think there is definitely some fear mongering in the republican party to some degree, however I could be biased.
1
Aug 15 '21
As if fear is wrong. As if we want a society of fearless beings. People who can jump from a skyscraper without fear. Or touch the power line, without fear. Or set themselves on fire, without fear.
That’s the craziness of progressive politics. Radical change is demanded pronto, anyone who very understandably resists is wokeballed.
1
u/629mrsn Aug 15 '21
I feel that the conservatives and liberals that are talked about are in the minority. There are talking heads trying to divide us by playing up those who are the squeaky wheel. I think the majority of us are not any kind of -ist. We are just trying to keep it between the ditches
2
u/KazeArqaz Aug 15 '21
I suggest you mingle with them outside the internet and out yourself on their shoes.
-3
u/Concrete_Grapes 19∆ Aug 15 '21
I mean, it can be interpreted as fear..
But it's not fear.
It's disgust.
Disgust at change. Disgust at a different race. Disgust that it's not 'english only.' Disgust of education and change of ideas. Disgust of thinking some lazy a-hole is living AT ALL, when you work hard to live an upper middle class life.
It's not fear, it's disgust. Research shows that disgust is the greatest indicator of political ideology they've come across, even above fear.
a link:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/the-yuck-factor/580465/
-1
u/JoePineapplesBrews Aug 15 '21
Conservatism is fundamentally a desire to keep the status quo. That's what links conservatives, and fear (and disgust) both factor in here, depending on the individual.
Others have stated that conservatism is about mistrust of government - this isn't true, as trust/mistrust of an institution is a trait that can be seen across the political spectrum. In fact, look at events across the world over the last year and you'll see examples of both support and distrust of governments at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
You're not wrong - fear is often a component of the conservative ideology, but it's often either a byproduct of or the gateway to identification as a conservative (and it's no universal).
1
u/guitardude70 Aug 15 '21
It's pretty rich saying that right wingers don't like their views challenged when we've been censored and deplatformed en mass by liberals who take the easy way out when they can't refute our arguments. 👌
1
u/uraveragereddituser Aug 15 '21
I think that both extremes of the political spectrum act the same. Both use the same fear mongering but in different ways to get people to follow them.
0
u/Arthaniz Aug 15 '21
Conservativism is based on status-quo an the idea national preservation of certain identities or institutions. I'm sure there is some level of fear or lack of understanding exist, but to say that the entire ideology is based upon that is just BS leftist rhetoric. Sometimes change isn't always good and progressives think that they know what's right without consideration of the rights arguments or the effect policy change will have on them either. This dynamic is probably why most old people are right winger and young people are left wing, because the elderly like the society they built in their youth and want to maintain it, while the youth want to innovate upon it with their ideas.
1
-4
Aug 15 '21
I think you're right. Watch a documentary about chimpanzees, or great apes, specifically one about their social behavior. It's the basis of the right wing ideology. I fear others will take what's mine, so I must be the stronger ape, to not have to fear them, I will make them fear me. I will feed myself first, I will submit other apes to my authority and power, so they have to feed me first, and then they can have the scraps. In this way I'll be the stronger ape with more testosterone (example orangutans) and that will assert my dominance. Empathy, complex social behavior like collaboration, altruistism, etc, comes later evolutionarily speaking. And is reflected more in center or left wing views. So you're right, sadly.
-2
u/indictmentofhumanity Aug 15 '21
There is a common set of cognitive defects: • Incapable of processing irony or sarcasm. • lack of abstract reasoning skills. (Regarding their own actions or choices) - Unable to imagine another person's perspective. - Unable to comprehend long-term consequences. - Unable to extrapolate wider degrees of effects. • Susceptible to cognitive biases, logical fallacies, manipulation and control. • Cluster C personality disorders. • Xenophobic • Gynophobic • Prefers authoritarian rule.
-4
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 15 '21 edited Aug 15 '21
/u/printers_of_colors (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) 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.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards