227
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
227 points (95.6% liked)
News
23310 readers
3545 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Who is behind them? Um... Conservatives. All of them.
Conservatism is hate. Nearly every act of domestic terrorism in North American history has been committed by conservatives. Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, misogyny, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia and anti-semitism ever committed in our planet's history has been committed by conservatives.
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with conservatives. Marginalize hate by marginalizing the hate group.
Wilhoit's law -
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
Left leaving people believe that every human is worth the same - right leaning people draw lines and exclude people from that equal group.
The more often they draw the line against a part of the population most people aren't part of the more likely is it that they manage to convince one of those that it's actually worth it for them to agree with those divisions
I think we all wish that were the case.
Marginalize hate by becoming hate.
Teaching children to hate, especially dogmatic hate, is disgusting even when one's stance is morally correct. If a stance is just, then by teaching children ethics and critical thinking they will come to the correct conclusion on their own. When one uses the exact same playbook as the worst parts of the group they hate, they become the worst part of the group they represent.
Since some people don't seem to realize what a bigot actually is:
Edit: Phrasing, mostly replacing the word "you" with generic pronouns.
You are mistaken. I am not espousing "intolerance of those who differ". I am espousing intolerance of a group of deadly dangerous bigots who demonize anyone who is not in their group. Do not equivocate the haters and their victims who reject them. That is a tactic of the conservatives.
When you name yourself @Burn_The_Right, you make it clear whether you are targeting a specific group or everyone in a certain political direction.
When you make statements like:
Or dismiss 40-year democrats as conservatives:
You make it clear whether you mean a single group or everyone who doesn't share your brand of liberalism.
Combined with:
or this gem: Edit: fixed broken link.
You can pretend that you are not an intolerant bigot advocating for mass-murder, but your own words betray you.
Reading through the constant fountain of hate that you spew in your comments makes it clear just how big of a problem Lemmy has right now. The vast majority of you comments are pushing for at least two-thirds of society to be "extinguished".
I have seen whole instances defederated for having a user say less violent and bigoted things than your comments do.
Are you conservative or just think being nice will fix the world…?
If I had to guess, I'd say cryptofascist. He demands tolerance towards bigots and only bigots.
Nice false dichotomy.
I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.
It is bad enough to marginalize small groups, but any political view that is advocating marginalizing half of society is the real enemy and should be fought against by all free people.
Idgaf what you think. You’re of the opinion that people who can’t even agree that certain members of our society are human and deserve basic rights should be sat down with and talked to?
I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.
Look up the tolerance paradox and think hard about that.
One person's nonsense is another person's importance.
None of these people on either side are going to just magically disappear because the other side doesn't like them.
If you want them to respect you enough to hear what you're saying (I'm assuming when you comment you actually want people to read it and consider what you're saying) you should do the same in reverse, even if you disagree with what they're saying.
Ignorance and Hate only leads to War and Death.
There is a far cry between tolerance without limit and hating anyone that doesn't agree with you. I can give you a hint as to which side you have been arguing for in case you got confused along the way.
I know exactly in which side of the line I stand. You have one foot in both. Stop talking to me.
Cute. You involved yourself in my dialogue, not the other way around. You could have stopped responding at any point.
It is hard being presented with logical reason that disagrees with our emotional beliefs. Look up cognitive dissonance. It might help you reconcile the pain.
No, it's hard to have a conversation with someone who refuses to respond to what they are commenting to and instead responding to arguments spacecowboy didn't make. Funny that.
SC lead with a false dichotomy and then when I gave them a genuine opinion anyways responded with "idgaf what you think". At which point did you think I should have spent more time giving in-depth answers?
I don't mind answering a question if you have one and are engaging in good faith. If however you lead with bad faith arguments, then twist and dismiss my opinions, I will have to apologize in advance because in that case I won't spend much time on the responses either.
Was there something they asked that you wanted to know the answer to?
And when their stance is 'trans people shouldn't have rights' what's the middle ground there exactly?
It should be obvious that I was not advocating for a middle ground between two disparate stances on a single issue. I was advocating for choosing issues that we already mostly agree on.
In general, in a democracy, laws should not be created relating to issues that there is little to no agreement on. Trans rights is obviously one of the issues where there is little agreement amongst the population and laws, particularly national laws, should be avoided until there is a strong consensus among the population.
Realize you're getting a lot more downvotes than upvotes, but I just wanted to let you know you're not alone, in this way of thinking.
I am glad to hear it. Sometimes I wonder what happened to this mindset or if was it an illusion all along.
I hate nazis.
Do you?
I learned at a young age that hating someone is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.
I feel the same disdain towards someone who would suggest we eradicate people because of their skin color or ethnic background as I do towards someone that would suggest that we eradicate people because of their political views.
The difference being, I have never encountered anyone in real life or on Lemmy who would openly admit to being a nazi, whereas I have never spent an hour on Lemmy without seeing someone who thinks its okay to unironically say, "kill conservatives" or "eat rich people" receive overwhelming positive votes.
You guys never do.
Now for your turn. Do you hate leftists that shame your stance by promoting genocide?
I hate anyone who promotes genocide. It's why I hate nazis.
Conservatism and wealth are neither immutable characteristics nor cultures. You have provided zero examples of leftists calling for genocide.
Then again, your definition of "bigotry" is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don't like bigots. Who knows how bonkers and contrary to reality your definition of "genocide" is?
Then we should be on similar sides of this argument.
Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics? Or are we just going to pretend that most Western conservatives aren't Protestants?
How odd, that doesn't sound anything like what I posted earlier. Not something I wrote mind you, just the first thing that came up when I web-searched "bigot". It is almost like you are making up a fake argument, that is easy to defeat, and then pretending I said something like it. If only there was a name for that sort of thing. S..st...straw.... I will give you hint, it isn't strawberry.
Here is the exact quote I posted earlier:
If you are getting something significantly different than that when you look up bigot, you might try using something other than Google; it has a tendency to reinforce one's own biases.
Conservatism itself is not a religion. There are plenty of conservative atheists and non-conservative religious institutions. Don't try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.
The only portion of the definition of "bigot" you care about is the portion you bolded. Which you're using as a proxy for "people who hold political views that are rooted in bigotry."
I'm glad lemmy is hostile to bigots. I hope that never changes.
I have no doubt that there are some conservative atheists, but let's not pretend that they represent anything other than an extreme minority of self-identified conservatives.
I will let Wikipedia do the talking here.
The bolded portion was the portion relevant to the conversation, and relevant to Lemmy in general. Even if what you are saying was true and that was all I cared about, it wouldn't mean OC wasn't being bigoted.
If Lemmy was hostile to all bigots instead of just conservative bigots, someone else would have called out OC as a bigot. After picking my jaw up off the floor, I would have upvoted then moved on.
You argue semantics a lot, huh? Got any more cherrypicked excerpts of definitions that you want to bold portions of at me?
If we are going to have a conversation can we at least try to have a little intellectual integrity?
You wanted to accuse me of having weird definitions of words. I copied the very first link from a web-search regarding those words to confirm my statements, but I am the one playing semantics games and cherry-picking?
How about you respond to the actual stances laid out since we got all our definitions in order. Or would you rather continue to throw bright colored fish across the room instead?
Bigotry can be towards political stances other than your own, and OC was engaging in it. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Advocating for mass eradication of a group of people with shared ethnic, religious, and cultural values is abhorrent and could be called genocide. Agree or Disagree, if not then why?
Disagree entirely. You choose your political affiliation, and that choice says something about the person who makes it. For example, anyone who is still with the Republican party after January 6 does not consider an attempted coup to be a dealbreaker. They see people marching with swastika flags and shouting "Jews will not replace us" and don't consider that to be a problem. They cheer when people call for the eradication of trans people.
Advocating for it is not genocide. It's advocating for genocide. I oppose genocide.
You point to any criticism of conservatives, up to and including nazis, announce that it's genocide, and then pretend to oppose genocide in that narrowly defined circumstance only. You would be positively delighted of conservatives' stated goal of wiping out trans people were accomplished, for example.
You are arguing on behalf of bigots in bad faith. I have better ways to waste a Sunday evening.
Well at least we can both agree that one of us is arguing on behalf of bigots and in bad faith.
Hope you enjoy the rest of the weekend.
And we both know it's you.
Genocide now?
Genocide is the intent to destroy members of a specific nationality, religion, ethnicity, or race.
Your hyperbole in this thread is a testament to the comments pointing out that conservatives don’t engage with reason.
If we are going to say that most conservatives are white protestants then yes it sounds like a fair term to use.
Though even if we decide it is the wrong term, calling for the eradication of large parts of the population based on religious, cultural and a political affiliation is still abhorrent.
Ah so you’re a centrist!
Guilty as charged or at least close enough.
Like most centrists, many of my views are not really in the center but I think it is necessary in a democracy to find a middle ground between the extremes.
hahahahahaha
If you've never met someone on real life who is openly racist, calls themselves a nazi, openly supports bigoted policies and/or actively works to remove rights from people for who they are - you're not paying attention. This is on a post about people organizing a march and politically strategizing to strip the rights away from other people.
I did not say that I had never met a racist or someone who supports bigoted policies, just that I had never met anyone that would admit to being a nazi. The difference being most nazis know they should keep their extremist views hidden.
I have met plenty or racists. For most of them it is subtle and they don't recognize it for what it is. I have never heard any of them advocate for killing everyone on the other side of the political spectrum or eating humans.
This is vague and politically loaded. I have definitely met TERFs, pro-lifers, and those that advocate against gender treatments for children, but that is not at all the same as advocating mass murder and cannibalism for those that disagree with their views.
I don't know anything about the group behind those protests. I was vaguely curious about it when I clicked this post but made the mistake of reading the most upvoted comment in this thread.
In my mind there is a pretty big difference between what the article says is the groups stated viewpoint:
and these excerpts from OCs own comment and history:
or
and
I think you lost track of who you're arguing with. But yeah, you admit people can be subtle about how they express their views and yet don't understand why that makes conservatives in north america dangerous.
I paint them with broad strokes because calling yourself a conservative in this times is accepting the broad variety of beliefs that political party supports. People have a choice.
As a marginalized person who had no choice in how I was born and always felt the affects of conservative policies, to the extreme detriment of my health and well-being, I absolutely understand and support anyone who thinks they should be ostracized.
Teaching children to hate? Where did that come from?
This is about teaching children how to recognize hate and avoid making hate part of their lives. It’s education and boundaries. Discretion isn’t hate.
You don't teach children to recognize hate by pointing at everyone right of middle and saying, those are bad people. That is how you teach hate itself.
It's acceptable for the same reason we tell our kids to avoid violent and hurtful people. I wouldn't befriend anyone who supports removing my rights for any reason, teaching kids to do the same promotes building healthy relationships with people who value and support each other.
Teaching kids to avoid violent and hurtful people is reasonable, but claiming the entire right side of the spectrum is equivalent to them is prejudicial bigotry. Teaching kids to do the same is teaching them the same prejudicial bigotry.
When you redefine a spectrum of beliefs as "removing my rights" then what you are removing is any ability to continue discourse. Without discourse there is no democracy. At best you end up with the tyranny of majority.
That's a long walk and a slippery slope. Deciding not to involve detrimental people in my life is not removing someone's right. It's my right to choose the people I surround myself with, and it's no one's right to be coddled by their peers.