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.
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
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:
bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Edit: Phrasing, mostly replacing the word “you” with generic pronouns.
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.
I wouldn’t befriend anyone who supports removing my rights
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.
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.
Biden is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals are conservatives. They are better dressed and more intelligent, but they are conservatives by all international measures.
Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.
Conservatism is a plague of oppression and death.
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.
Is this the centrist part, where some violence is ok?
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.
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.
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?
There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else
Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.
Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.
There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.
The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.
I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society
There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges
I’ve been saying it for a good while now, and almost never get much response -but it’s worth saying anyways.
Please help spread this idea… It’ll never be popular, but it’s important. Far too few people get that, but words that ring true tend to stick with people down the line
I have no time for their nonsense and no time for yours.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
remove rights from people for who they are
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:
“Our primary concern is indoctrination of children in public schools,” the group says on its website. “This movement is mainly focused on protection of children against LGBTQIA+ ideology in school system and not to fight back against the LGBTQ community.”
and these excerpts from OCs own comment and history:
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with conservatives.
Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.
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.
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.
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?
your definition of “bigotry” is selective enough that you only consider people to be bigots if they don’t like bigots
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:
bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
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.
Does it really needed to be pointed out that Conservatism in the West is based on religious and cultural characteristics?
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.
Don’t try to co-opt religion just to pretend that your political views are a culture.
I will let Wikipedia do the talking here.
Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.
the portion you bolded.
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.
I’m glad lemmy is hostile to bigots.
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.
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?
Bigotry can be towards political stances other than your own, and OC was engaging in it. 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 mass eradication of a group of people with shared ethnic, religious, and cultural values is abhorrent and could be called genocide. Agree or Disagree,
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.
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.
How the f do these people get off saying straight people are oppressed. Besides being the vast majority, without straight people our species would die… like, who is that dumb to believe this horseshit?
It’s time people started learning about the groups that create such events. This is all funded by the Tanton network, and they ship in professional protestors to participate, same as in antichoice marches, where they fly them in from the US.
So instead of looking into a more common ground in these issues, we see libral in social media labelling any conservative as “hater” “idiots” and then wonder why conservative get elected.
I have never seen a normal conversation that address any of the conserns that parents and people who have conservative values would have.
Instead, if they are religious we see comments saying they will do anything for their imaginary friend, and if they are conservative, they don’t know how to raise their kids, and the best is when talking about blocker thereby, comment will dismiss everything as being non harmful which doesn’t make sense.
I am also amazed that people with concern or question cannot say much because of the hate speech laws that are vaguely defined. So you end up with people “force” to be quite and only able to have conversations with like minded or extremist people. This also force academics/lawyers/medically trained individual to not say anything.
I always wonder if this is a work of trolls who aimd at dividing the country similar to what happens in the US and UK.
Edit: cool to see some of the replies actually prove a point.
if they are religious we see comments saying they will do anything for their imaginary friend
I mean, yeah, usually the religious people demonstrating have things saying “you will burn in hell” or similar. Thats not an argument at all, other than they doing it for their imaginary friend.
Indeed, discussion between the left and right no longer seems possible. Both sides focus on the extremes. The far-right arguments and the far-left arguments instead of the centrist povs.
I think that any controversial point that people have different takes works like this… Vast majority of people, free of influence from their others, are centrist. A bell-curve of dividing opinions. Most people would either not care, or not find a big issue about it. Few will take it to the extremes. But over time in political discourse, we move from a bell curve of opinions to two very divisive sides.
Since the main topic is apparently too hot of a take, I’ll take pineapple on a pizza for example (Perhaps I’m getting into even hotter waters). Free of external influence (i.e. memes), I think most people will eat it without much thought. Some might like it, some might not, and I doubt it’s all that controversial–likely less than anchovies. If you don’t like it, you just don’t have to eat it.
But if one extreme said we must ban pineapples from all pizzas, and the other end of the extreme said we must put pineapple on all pizzas, we have a very different scenario. I myself enjoy Hawaiian pizza and find pineapples to be a fine topping. But I certainly don’t want to eat only pineapple pizzas all the time. So, I’d look at both extremes and side with no pineapples ever. That seems better of the two options. I can no longer be a centrist because the idea of having only pineapple pizza seems horrible. But I don’t really eat whole pizzas by myself, I eat it with others. And if others are such great lovers of pineapple pizza, I’d be influenced to side with the other extreme of always having pineapple due to peers.
I want to highlight that both of these extremes are authoritarian. One forces you to eat pineapple. The other forces you to not eat pineapple. Neither are true libertarian choices. They are forced viewpoints one forces on the other. That’s what forces people to have such strong negative emotion towards it. No one wants to be forced into things. This is important and I’ll come back to this later.
Just look at every other reply to the comment I’m replying to. They highlight how the extreme right is horrible. Yeah. They are. It seems there’s no arguing with them. They seem to have extreme authoritarian views. How do you deal with them as a left leaning person? You can’t. The ones that can deal with them, are not you, but the centrists or the non-extreme rights. You can only bring them to your side by shunning your own extreme left. Vice versa the other way around too for rights bringing in the left. You need to recognize extremism and learn to shun them. But we don’t do that. We get into team mentality and think your side is right and the other is wrong. The more people think like that, the more divisive people get because they associate the extreme with the rest. Just because I want to eat pineapple pizza doesn’t mean I want to force everyone to eat pineapple pizza.
Look at this article. It constantly highlights how some members of the organization are extreme leaning. Yes, I’m sure there are. It’s a team game after all. But then we’re intentionally ignoring the vast quantity of people who aren’t.
The right is seeing authoritarian regime from the left as their children are now forced to learn about things they don’t approve of. Whether or not you think learning of LGBT+ in school is right or wrong is what you will be fixated on, but it is entirely irrelevant. Whether or not I want pineapple on pizza is irrelevant. Problem is forced. Problem is whether or not I’m forced to eat pineapple pizza. This is why you get such push away, why the centrists find themselves having to side with one or the other. They’re siding with the one they feel less repulsed to. Though people love to (mis)quote the paradox of tolerance and how they must intolerate the intolerant, they don’t realize this is said on both sides of the spectrum. Both sides feel forced by the other to suppress them, and then we continue to speculate on what is the other side through the extreme responses. This is why both sides keep saying they’re victims. This is why they both claim the other is a fascist. You might not be the extreme authoritarian so you probably think the argument is idiotic, bigotry, etc. because you brought a sensible argument. But some of the people on your team are. You probably don’t realize they’re behind you. But they’re the face the other side sees.
Though I did bring the solution, I doubt it’s a plausible one. I don’t think any significant number of people in the moderate political climate is interested in doing so. As seen by number of downvotes. Frankly, I think we’re fucked.
So, I’d look at both extremes and side with no pineapples ever.
We can’t be friends anymore. Go die with all your anti-pineapplist friends!!
Anti-pinapplism is hate. Nearly every act of domestic toppings in Marinara history has been committed by Anti-pinapplists. Nearly every act of mushrooms, green peppers, onions, and even anchovies ever committed in Dipping Sauce history has been committed by Anti-pinapplists.
Teach your children why it is inappropriate to make friends with, keep relationships with or do business with Anti-pinapplists. Marginalize hate by marginalizing me. Wait wut?
Frankly, I think we’re fucked.
Sadly, I think you are probably right. The US and several other major democratic powers seem to be trying to find their own recipes for civil war.
Where is the common ground between ‘trans people are people’ and ‘trans people are abominations that should be relegated to the backwash of society until we find a socially acceptable reason to kill them.’?
I have never seen a normal conversation that address any of the conserns that parents and people who have conservative values would have.
When conservatives learn to present their arguments in a non-hyperbolic fashion that doesn't ignore science and reality, and to have an adult conversation about the merits of those arguments, and to be honest about what is motivating those arguments, then this complaint will hold some water.
I have never seen a normal conversation that address any of the conserns that parents and people who have conservative values would have.
Because their concerns are delusional.
You can’t have a “normal conversation” about kitty litter boxes being placed in schools for students who are furries. It never happened, but someone told them it did and now they’re angry about it. Try to tell them it’s not happening and they fell for a hoax and then they accuse you of being blind to the truth and hurting children.
Constructive discourse is impossible. All you can hope to do is limit their influence by appealing to people who have not already fallen for their fear mongering. Engaging directly is a trap.
If you think these people don't have any impact, you've not been paying attention to your neighbours to the south (or to us over the pond, or to anywhere where trans and other queer people are being targeted, really)
I feel like I need to defend us a little: US is pretty well split between two extremes right now, and you mostly read about this in the 1/3 of states that are highly conservative.
Even in Florida, with all its faults, all its hatred, it’s corrupt government, it’s attacks on education …… a buddy in mine living in a community with a high percentage of lgbt folk, says it really doesn’t affect them directly. I’d worry more about raising kids there
Lmfao, do as much mental gymnastics as you like, that doesn't change reality, nor make the US defensible in any way shape or form.
says it really doesn’t affect them directly
and that right there is the problem - that you (and your friend) only see an issue once it does.
Maybe try taking your head out of that rotten "standing up for my country" sand and actually try listening more to those already impacted, because I guarantee there are many, they wholeheartedly disagree with you, and it isn't stopping with them.
Would it help to rephrase for my I tended meaning?
— Yes it’s a problem but we’re not all like that. Most of us are not.
— Even in one of the most bigoted places, with politicians spewing hatred, even as one of the targeted groups, a lot of it is just bluster and the hatred doesn’t always translate to real life
— Hatred toward x, is mostly “riling up the base” and you don’t always encounter them, but attacks on education use the force of law to apply the bigotry everywhere, impacting the future of our children and our society
US is pretty well split between two extremes right now
I'm curious what you think the extreme is on the other end of the spectrum from right-wing bigotry, because usually folks who say this label the "trans and gay people exist, are people, are not all pedophiles, and deserve the same human rights and basic decency as anyone" contingent as the other extreme, somehow.
At the risk of showing my bias, the other end of the spectrum is “people”. Just people. Normal people, different people, special people people of varying attributes, ethnicities, and preferences.
You’re probably correct that “extremes” was not the best choice of words, but I meant that as in opposing. We have people on one side and right wing bigots on the opposite, and they are bound to clash
I meant these marchers, which seem disorganized and relatively few people. The overall trend, rightwing extremism, is a worldwide problem whose flames were fanned by Russia and China. The American brand of right wing BS is particularly destructive and infectious though. I know it, I moved from a place getting infected by it to a place where people like me (bi) are safer.
UK seems to be on a similar path, unfortunately. Though it’s a slightly different take on it.
Add comment