“I just wish there was a place I could talk about maintaining the structures that oppress billions but keep me feeling comfortable and superior without those who are negatively impacted telling me I’m a piece of shit”
Why not actually respond to what they said? Conservatism is inherently about conserving power in the elite. It seems a bit immature to respond to an (admittedly snide and sarcastic) challenge to your beliefs with a personal insult. All they did was accurately break down what your comment represents.
I’m having a dozen conversations and 80% of the time when I click on the response in my inbox to go back to the context it takes me to another post all together.
I don’t even know what our conversation has been up to this point.
What did they say? And then how did I respond? I wish you could see my inbox with all of the personal attacks I’ve received not only today, but over the last two months over different accounts lol
So if someone is being an idiot to me, I don’t have a problem being an idiot back. If you’re respectful, I’ll have a respectful conversation with you.
That entire comment was just a dodge. Do your due diligence and click “show context” (it is the bare minimum effort), and stop avoiding the subject. Or just don’t respond if you don’t want to discuss.
If you want to know what they were talking about - I already summed it up in the comment you’re responding to. Precisely so you couldn’t excuse dodging the point a second time. And yet, here you are, doing exactly that.
Do you deny that conservatism is about conserving the power in the established elite? And if so - how?
Lol this is the kind of thing that shows up in my inbox over and over and over again
I just told you, I click on the reply and it takes me to some random part of the thread. When replies start getting nested and there’s a lot of comments I can’t find the posts. And I don’t really care that much to spend the time searching, when my inbox keeps filling up with messages like the one I linked.
Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.
Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.
This is “state’s rights” level of beating around the bush.
What traditions? What values? What institutions? I’ll tell you which ones.
The “tradition” of hierarchy and dominance, of the supremacy of capitalism and the Protestant work ethic, which have inevitably created an elite class.
The “values” of hyper individualism, competition and deference to authority, which have led to oligopolies forming and exerting control over society, to be defended by the state at all costs.
The institutions of the state and capital. Need I say more?
What you’re describing is really just western civilization, just in a really cynical way.
I get it, you and people like you hate western civilization. That’s why those of us who love it stamp out any communist bullshit when we see it. Because we know, we know what the point of the ‘revolution’ is, it’s to destroy the western countries.
It’s not something you’re likely to come out and admit, but when you say something like the ‘tradition of hierarchy’ well ya. What exactly is wrong with that? Dominance isn’t a well defined term, supremacy is a loaded word, I don’t know what a Protestant work ethic is in comparison to any other type of work ethic, but of course I value some kind of work ethic.
Yes there should be hierarchy. Of course.
‘Deference to authority’, is this some anarchy argument? That’s what it sounds like.
So if I break down all of what you’re saying, remove hierarchy, remove capitalism, remove competition and authority.
Okay, I take all that in and I think “hm. He wants to destroy everything that western civilization has built”.
This is why I’ll always oppose this kind of bullshit, because it’s disgusting. What you mean, if you got your way, would cause so much more death and suffering and you’re cowering behind this visage of saintly goodness. It’s gross, honestly.
And most people who argue for this I usually just assuming are misinformed dreamers hoping for a utopia that’ll never come. But then there are others, the ones who know what they’re asking for and willing to go the distance to achieve it.
Those ones are, I think, ones like you. Probably in here spreading anarchocommunist propaganda for your cause online to impressionable and well meaning kids.
People like that, know they’re trying to destroy the country and rebuild it in their own anarcho-communist image.
What Lemmy client are you using? All the ones I’ve tried allow you to jump right to the comment thread to read the comment in context. Reading via inbox sounds really disjointed and painful.
Its because for us in America there is nothing to argue for on conservatism that is appealing. Our democrats are center-right. What do we have to discuss between extremists and centrists of the same side? What companies should be bailed out first? Which lobbyist donate the fattest cheques? Its abysmal. So no, you won’t find any citizens who want to discuss with conservatives same as you won’t find many willing to discuss with the Taliban.
But can we start with an agreed on definition of the term ‘extremist’?
My point is that, if you think 300 million other people in your country are extremists, and there are any 350-ish million people in your country - mayyyyybe the 300 aren’t the extremists and maybe you are.
That doesn’t make sense. Looking at the US, there appears to be around 18% on the extreme right, 60 percent on the moderate right, 20% on the moderate left to center, and 2% on the extreme left.
But the media reporting on them appear to be weighted extreme right and left.
Populist politics and media have resulted in many countries around the world becoming less tolerant of opposing views, which has driven many discussions (and more people) to ideological extremes.
But you can have 50% extreme left and 50% extreme right in a country easily. Just means nobody’s willing to compromise on anything.
I’d like to see what the definition of ‘extreme left’ and ‘extreme right’ is to pair with those numbers. Is it something the ADL or NAACP came up with?
It does. I shortened it a bit. The conservatives usually use many words, and they might try not to sound racist, but when pressed, they more or less admit they want certain groups of persons not to exist, women to have fewer rights, and so on. Back to barbarian times and war crimes basically.
There’s nothing to debate with conservatives. If you were a reasonable person looking for good faith discussion you wouldn’t be a conservative. So no one will engage with you because its a waste of time at best.
You have the entirety of human history at your fingertips and you’re too lazy to seek out information. No one wants to babysit you through Wikipedia.
It is also my experience dealing with conservatives that any time you people get DESTROYED you people get really angry, like threateningly angry.
I’ll give you a concrete example: the other poster whinging about immigration. Do you know the history of immigration laws? Do you know the causes of immigration? What are the effects of immigration? What are the impacts to communities? Do you understand current and historical colonialism? Or did newscorp tell you immigrants are scary (especially the brown ones)?
“You are a waste of time at best”
“You’re too lazy to seek out information”
Read the comment you replied to. It’s a single sentence. I cannot state it any simpler.
No I do not know the entire history of immigration legislation, even pertaining to the US. Yes I know causes of immigration, but likely not all of them. Yes I know what I don’t know, which is why I don’t debate about immigration. I know it is entirely too difficult for people seeking to immigrate OR seek asylum in the US to become citizens, and I’d go as far to say it’s impossible for most. Yes we need to fix our southern border, because we are actively treating immigrants like trash and not humans seeking a better life. Open borders, for the most part, are good borders. And no I did not read the other poster’s comments.
I didn’t use you correctly in my previous comment. I meant in order to have a conversation about a particular topic, we have to go through all the prior assumptions to even begin a conversation. I did not mean to ask you in particular about immigration (and the other poster is not from the US), I was pointing out how much education and discussion must be had. The reason I brought up those points is if you were to look up the immigration laws passed in the early 1900s they were explicitly racist. If you look up the repercussions of immigrants on communities, they are mostly very positive. If you find out about western international policies and the displacement of people due to those policies, you’ll find most immigration is driven from instability caused by those policies. All of which is to say that immigration is a non-issue. Yet its a conservative talking point you all want to discuss, incessantly, because it plays well with xenophobic racists.
I have yet to see a conservative policy that is defensible in any way. The only thing they’re right about is yes, if you give power and money to corporations the stock market goes up.
because you are looking for a platform that will be more open to conservative users. I keep hearing conservatives complain they have nowhere to go, but there is a platform specifically for them, and I don’t know why they won’t use it
The issue is that you rely on fear to gain support. You can’t just say, “I’m opposed to illegal immigration, we need to police our borders better.” Many people are interested in regulated borders. But then many on your side make it clear hate is their motivator, playing the xenophobic line and saying shit like “because these sand n*$&ers are murderers, terrorists and rapists.” And those who aren’t saying shit like that are silent.
I’m not interested in importing deeply conservative religious people to this country that are going to threaten the societal shift toward a secular society, especially at the specific time the SCOTUS is giving religions special privileges. But by no means do I need to cultivate hate in my heart or others, unless I’m a fuck.
Where the fuck are you hearing that? Every conversation I have with my conservative friends revolves around how much immigration is reasonably doable and what number is too much strain on the system.
There’s never a racist undertone to the conversation. Immigrants can come from Africa, or Mexico, or Poland. No one I know gives a shit about who they are, just what the policy around it is
What methodology is use in determining numbers surrounding how much immigration is doable? Is there economic metrics involved in doing this? Which ones do you use?
What’s the proposal? Building a wall is a joke. It doesn’t work; ignores the need for migrant workers for things like farming that don’t have viable alternatives; And ultimately is a big grift by Republican donors to get bloated contacts to build it but never really complete it in anything meaningful way.
All of the political tests I’ve ever taken have named me a ‘classic liberal’. There are so many subdivision of political leanings that it gets pretty confusing.
I call myself a conservative because I believe in the family unit being the backbone of our society. The most important thing in the world. I believe in small government, I believe in free market capitalism, I think taxes should be minimal and government should be responsible with balancing the budget.
Im not overly religious, but I think religion has a lot of good lessons to teach. I think the Bible creates fences around issues and asks us to do our best not to cross them, but those fences are far enough away from the real issue that we need to avoid to mean it’s not a huge deal if we step over the odd one here or there. I don’t take the Bible 100% literally.
As for social topics, I’m much more liberal than where I am with governing. This is why I voted for Justin Trudeau back in like, 2015.
I believe drugs should be legal, sex work should be legal, I think we should have less laws in general. I respect the idea of the police, but I realize a lot of them are just losers from highschool who got picked on and now they have a gun and a badge.
I had a long soul searching introspective moment on abortion when my wife became pregnant with our first child and we were talking to the doctor about testing for Down’s syndrome.
I realized that for me, I am against it. But I’m not so quick to say it should be banned. I do think there should be common sense restrictions though.
Yeah that makes sense. I think as an inevitable result of writing a brief online comment, you’ve expressed a quite vague and shallow perspective here, so if you don’t mind I’d like to dig into it a little bit. In particular, I’m curious about what you mean when you say you “believe in small government” and “free market capitalism”.
What sort of things do you think government should not be doing? Should people not be entitled to live a healthy life without being bankrupted? (I.e., should government not fund healthcare?) Are workers not entitled to fair treatment for their labour? (industrial relations laws and workplace health & safety.) Is public safety and order not important? (Fire departments, police, maybe the defence forces.) How do you feel when governments give subsidies to some businesses, like agriculture, mining, “bailing out the banks”, or private education?
You’ll note that some of these are things that conservative governments are associated with doing more of, while others are things conservative governments do less of. It’s why I’ve always found the conservative parties’ claims to be “small government” rather misleading. More of a marketing approach they use that doesn’t actually represent what they stand for, and thus not particularly useful in good faith political discourse.
Conservatism as an ideology believes in the existence of a “natural hierarchy”, where society is ordered into people with power and people without power, and the ones with power deserve that power because that’s the natural hierarchy. Conservatives have the primary objective to enforce that imaginary hierarchy. Basically they’re the remains of Pro-Feudalists from the early days of Capitalism.
This coincides well with modern day capitalism, which also wants to enforce a “natural hierarchy” - just in its case it’s capital vs. labor instead of powerful vs. powerless people.
If you want my opinion, I’d put you in the “right wing liberal” drawer. Which, in american dimensions (because the US does not have a political left wing), would be the democratic party. If you were an actual conservative, you would use abortion as an opportunity to enforce the “women < men” power dynamic for example, because that’s one of the imaginary “natural hierarchies” conservatives believe in.
You have a reasonable take. I’m sorry you’re going to get assaulted with messages. Lemmy’s a bit of a hive mind so just know you’re not unreasonable for wanting a space where discussion can be had without bad faith. Also a conservative by the way. I’m really much more moderate, but no one here would classify me as that since the scope is shifted
Right - the US overton window is dramatically shifted to the right, and the discourse on here does not accept that as a given but rather as a subject of critical analysis.
I’m conservative, I’m not American though.
I wish there was a place we could talk about the issues we disagree on without assuming the other is PURE EVIL OMG HITLER HITLER NAZI!
Or DIRTY PEDO COMMIE HATES WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND WANTS US TO ALL BE GULAGED LITERALLY STALIN STALIN STALIN!
“I just wish there was a place I could talk about maintaining the structures that oppress billions but keep me feeling comfortable and superior without those who are negatively impacted telling me I’m a piece of shit”
Damn, man
It must be miserable being you
Why not actually respond to what they said? Conservatism is inherently about conserving power in the elite. It seems a bit immature to respond to an (admittedly snide and sarcastic) challenge to your beliefs with a personal insult. All they did was accurately break down what your comment represents.
I’m having a dozen conversations and 80% of the time when I click on the response in my inbox to go back to the context it takes me to another post all together.
I don’t even know what our conversation has been up to this point.
What did they say? And then how did I respond? I wish you could see my inbox with all of the personal attacks I’ve received not only today, but over the last two months over different accounts lol
So if someone is being an idiot to me, I don’t have a problem being an idiot back. If you’re respectful, I’ll have a respectful conversation with you.
That entire comment was just a dodge. Do your due diligence and click “show context” (it is the bare minimum effort), and stop avoiding the subject. Or just don’t respond if you don’t want to discuss.
If you want to know what they were talking about - I already summed it up in the comment you’re responding to. Precisely so you couldn’t excuse dodging the point a second time. And yet, here you are, doing exactly that.
Do you deny that conservatism is about conserving the power in the established elite? And if so - how?
https://lemmy.one/comment/2873366
Lol this is the kind of thing that shows up in my inbox over and over and over again
I just told you, I click on the reply and it takes me to some random part of the thread. When replies start getting nested and there’s a lot of comments I can’t find the posts. And I don’t really care that much to spend the time searching, when my inbox keeps filling up with messages like the one I linked.
Conservation of tradition is what conservatives usually aim to do. Nothing about established elite, but values, institutions, traditions, etc. that’s the context of ‘conserve’ in the name.
Of course there’s a lot more to it than that.
This is “state’s rights” level of beating around the bush.
What traditions? What values? What institutions? I’ll tell you which ones.
The “tradition” of hierarchy and dominance, of the supremacy of capitalism and the Protestant work ethic, which have inevitably created an elite class.
The “values” of hyper individualism, competition and deference to authority, which have led to oligopolies forming and exerting control over society, to be defended by the state at all costs.
The institutions of the state and capital. Need I say more?
What you’re describing is really just western civilization, just in a really cynical way.
I get it, you and people like you hate western civilization. That’s why those of us who love it stamp out any communist bullshit when we see it. Because we know, we know what the point of the ‘revolution’ is, it’s to destroy the western countries.
It’s not something you’re likely to come out and admit, but when you say something like the ‘tradition of hierarchy’ well ya. What exactly is wrong with that? Dominance isn’t a well defined term, supremacy is a loaded word, I don’t know what a Protestant work ethic is in comparison to any other type of work ethic, but of course I value some kind of work ethic.
Yes there should be hierarchy. Of course.
‘Deference to authority’, is this some anarchy argument? That’s what it sounds like.
So if I break down all of what you’re saying, remove hierarchy, remove capitalism, remove competition and authority.
Okay, I take all that in and I think “hm. He wants to destroy everything that western civilization has built”.
This is why I’ll always oppose this kind of bullshit, because it’s disgusting. What you mean, if you got your way, would cause so much more death and suffering and you’re cowering behind this visage of saintly goodness. It’s gross, honestly.
And most people who argue for this I usually just assuming are misinformed dreamers hoping for a utopia that’ll never come. But then there are others, the ones who know what they’re asking for and willing to go the distance to achieve it.
Those ones are, I think, ones like you. Probably in here spreading anarchocommunist propaganda for your cause online to impressionable and well meaning kids.
People like that, know they’re trying to destroy the country and rebuild it in their own anarcho-communist image.
What Lemmy client are you using? All the ones I’ve tried allow you to jump right to the comment thread to read the comment in context. Reading via inbox sounds really disjointed and painful.
It’s Memmy app. It’s absolutely not functioning properly
Yeah, that’s why they want change.
Its because for us in America there is nothing to argue for on conservatism that is appealing. Our democrats are center-right. What do we have to discuss between extremists and centrists of the same side? What companies should be bailed out first? Which lobbyist donate the fattest cheques? Its abysmal. So no, you won’t find any citizens who want to discuss with conservatives same as you won’t find many willing to discuss with the Taliban.
Honestly, it sounds like you’re the extreme one if you think the majority of everyone else is either centrist or extremist themselves.
How can you reconcile that?
If I understand what you’ve wrote you said;
You’re an extremist if you think the majority of other people are extremists.
Could you please elaborate on that?
If you want to do this, we can.
But can we start with an agreed on definition of the term ‘extremist’?
My point is that, if you think 300 million other people in your country are extremists, and there are any 350-ish million people in your country - mayyyyybe the 300 aren’t the extremists and maybe you are.
If that’s how you see the world
That doesn’t make sense. Looking at the US, there appears to be around 18% on the extreme right, 60 percent on the moderate right, 20% on the moderate left to center, and 2% on the extreme left.
But the media reporting on them appear to be weighted extreme right and left.
Populist politics and media have resulted in many countries around the world becoming less tolerant of opposing views, which has driven many discussions (and more people) to ideological extremes.
But you can have 50% extreme left and 50% extreme right in a country easily. Just means nobody’s willing to compromise on anything.
I’d like to see what the definition of ‘extreme left’ and ‘extreme right’ is to pair with those numbers. Is it something the ADL or NAACP came up with?
deleted by creator
Conervative: “please don’t call me a nazi hear me out first”
Normal people: “ok”
Conservative: “sieg heil, gas the jews”
Normal people: “you’re a nazi”
Conservative: “see you won’t even listen”
Right cause this fucking happens
It does. I shortened it a bit. The conservatives usually use many words, and they might try not to sound racist, but when pressed, they more or less admit they want certain groups of persons not to exist, women to have fewer rights, and so on. Back to barbarian times and war crimes basically.
What you’re looking for is certainly not on this platform
Unfortunately, I don’t think it exists anywhere
why aren’t you on truth social?
I want debate, not a right wing echochamber or roulette of insults
There’s nothing to debate with conservatives. If you were a reasonable person looking for good faith discussion you wouldn’t be a conservative. So no one will engage with you because its a waste of time at best.
You have the entirety of human history at your fingertips and you’re too lazy to seek out information. No one wants to babysit you through Wikipedia.
It is also my experience dealing with conservatives that any time you people get DESTROYED you people get really angry, like threateningly angry.
I’ll give you a concrete example: the other poster whinging about immigration. Do you know the history of immigration laws? Do you know the causes of immigration? What are the effects of immigration? What are the impacts to communities? Do you understand current and historical colonialism? Or did newscorp tell you immigrants are scary (especially the brown ones)?
“You are a waste of time at best” “You’re too lazy to seek out information”
Read the comment you replied to. It’s a single sentence. I cannot state it any simpler.
No I do not know the entire history of immigration legislation, even pertaining to the US. Yes I know causes of immigration, but likely not all of them. Yes I know what I don’t know, which is why I don’t debate about immigration. I know it is entirely too difficult for people seeking to immigrate OR seek asylum in the US to become citizens, and I’d go as far to say it’s impossible for most. Yes we need to fix our southern border, because we are actively treating immigrants like trash and not humans seeking a better life. Open borders, for the most part, are good borders. And no I did not read the other poster’s comments.
Not get the fuck off your high horse.
I didn’t use you correctly in my previous comment. I meant in order to have a conversation about a particular topic, we have to go through all the prior assumptions to even begin a conversation. I did not mean to ask you in particular about immigration (and the other poster is not from the US), I was pointing out how much education and discussion must be had. The reason I brought up those points is if you were to look up the immigration laws passed in the early 1900s they were explicitly racist. If you look up the repercussions of immigrants on communities, they are mostly very positive. If you find out about western international policies and the displacement of people due to those policies, you’ll find most immigration is driven from instability caused by those policies. All of which is to say that immigration is a non-issue. Yet its a conservative talking point you all want to discuss, incessantly, because it plays well with xenophobic racists.
I have yet to see a conservative policy that is defensible in any way. The only thing they’re right about is yes, if you give power and money to corporations the stock market goes up.
Why would I be?
because you are looking for a platform that will be more open to conservative users. I keep hearing conservatives complain they have nowhere to go, but there is a platform specifically for them, and I don’t know why they won’t use it
Why do we need to be in different places online according to our political leaning?
No one said you needed to be, just that it’s an option
deleted by creator
Let me know when you find it, I’m looking too
is there a reason you aren’t on truth social?
Oh poor you. Go fuck yourself with a rusty blade, asshole.
The issue is that you rely on fear to gain support. You can’t just say, “I’m opposed to illegal immigration, we need to police our borders better.” Many people are interested in regulated borders. But then many on your side make it clear hate is their motivator, playing the xenophobic line and saying shit like “because these sand n*$&ers are murderers, terrorists and rapists.” And those who aren’t saying shit like that are silent.
I’m not interested in importing deeply conservative religious people to this country that are going to threaten the societal shift toward a secular society, especially at the specific time the SCOTUS is giving religions special privileges. But by no means do I need to cultivate hate in my heart or others, unless I’m a fuck.
Where the fuck are you hearing that? Every conversation I have with my conservative friends revolves around how much immigration is reasonably doable and what number is too much strain on the system.
There’s never a racist undertone to the conversation. Immigrants can come from Africa, or Mexico, or Poland. No one I know gives a shit about who they are, just what the policy around it is
What methodology is use in determining numbers surrounding how much immigration is doable? Is there economic metrics involved in doing this? Which ones do you use?
What’s the proposal? Building a wall is a joke. It doesn’t work; ignores the need for migrant workers for things like farming that don’t have viable alternatives; And ultimately is a big grift by Republican donors to get bloated contacts to build it but never really complete it in anything meaningful way.
What’s your definition of conservative, and what is it about conservatism that appeals to you?
All of the political tests I’ve ever taken have named me a ‘classic liberal’. There are so many subdivision of political leanings that it gets pretty confusing.
I call myself a conservative because I believe in the family unit being the backbone of our society. The most important thing in the world. I believe in small government, I believe in free market capitalism, I think taxes should be minimal and government should be responsible with balancing the budget.
Im not overly religious, but I think religion has a lot of good lessons to teach. I think the Bible creates fences around issues and asks us to do our best not to cross them, but those fences are far enough away from the real issue that we need to avoid to mean it’s not a huge deal if we step over the odd one here or there. I don’t take the Bible 100% literally.
As for social topics, I’m much more liberal than where I am with governing. This is why I voted for Justin Trudeau back in like, 2015.
I believe drugs should be legal, sex work should be legal, I think we should have less laws in general. I respect the idea of the police, but I realize a lot of them are just losers from highschool who got picked on and now they have a gun and a badge.
I had a long soul searching introspective moment on abortion when my wife became pregnant with our first child and we were talking to the doctor about testing for Down’s syndrome.
I realized that for me, I am against it. But I’m not so quick to say it should be banned. I do think there should be common sense restrictions though.
Does that all make sense?
Yeah that makes sense. I think as an inevitable result of writing a brief online comment, you’ve expressed a quite vague and shallow perspective here, so if you don’t mind I’d like to dig into it a little bit. In particular, I’m curious about what you mean when you say you “believe in small government” and “free market capitalism”.
What sort of things do you think government should not be doing? Should people not be entitled to live a healthy life without being bankrupted? (I.e., should government not fund healthcare?) Are workers not entitled to fair treatment for their labour? (industrial relations laws and workplace health & safety.) Is public safety and order not important? (Fire departments, police, maybe the defence forces.) How do you feel when governments give subsidies to some businesses, like agriculture, mining, “bailing out the banks”, or private education?
You’ll note that some of these are things that conservative governments are associated with doing more of, while others are things conservative governments do less of. It’s why I’ve always found the conservative parties’ claims to be “small government” rather misleading. More of a marketing approach they use that doesn’t actually represent what they stand for, and thus not particularly useful in good faith political discourse.
Yes but it doesn’t describe conservatism.
How would you describe conservatism?
Conservatism as an ideology believes in the existence of a “natural hierarchy”, where society is ordered into people with power and people without power, and the ones with power deserve that power because that’s the natural hierarchy. Conservatives have the primary objective to enforce that imaginary hierarchy. Basically they’re the remains of Pro-Feudalists from the early days of Capitalism.
This coincides well with modern day capitalism, which also wants to enforce a “natural hierarchy” - just in its case it’s capital vs. labor instead of powerful vs. powerless people.
If you want my opinion, I’d put you in the “right wing liberal” drawer. Which, in american dimensions (because the US does not have a political left wing), would be the democratic party. If you were an actual conservative, you would use abortion as an opportunity to enforce the “women < men” power dynamic for example, because that’s one of the imaginary “natural hierarchies” conservatives believe in.
If you can’t find a reasonable discussion about a question anywhere, then maybe the question you’re asking isn’t reasonable.
Or maybe not
Good luck with your wish, then.
You have a reasonable take. I’m sorry you’re going to get assaulted with messages. Lemmy’s a bit of a hive mind so just know you’re not unreasonable for wanting a space where discussion can be had without bad faith. Also a conservative by the way. I’m really much more moderate, but no one here would classify me as that since the scope is shifted
Right - the US overton window is dramatically shifted to the right, and the discourse on here does not accept that as a given but rather as a subject of critical analysis.