Somebody that's actively trying to end my existence isn't a friend.
I love that they excuse their vote as anything else.
I just want a tax cut. (and don't care about the republic or my friends' lives)
And said tax cut will work like this:
Step 1: Before it happens, you're asked to publicly dream about what an extra $4000 will do for you on social media.
Step 2: Once it passes, you get a 0.1% tax cut. Enough for one extra pizza. Per year. The bill will also includes 3 tax raises only for the poor, one every 4 years that follow.
Step 3: The corporation you work for, meanwhile, gets a 16% tax cut. With it, they'll announce a $2000 one-time payment to all workers. Which will be rescinded as soon as it's been reported about on local news. The bill also includes 3 further, even bigger tax cuts for the rich, one every 4 years.
End result: taxes raised on the poor, taxes lowered for the rich, but lots of social media euphoria from the working class, lots of newspaper clippings of bosses giving their workers generous one-time payments (that never materialized). And next election cycle, Fox News can dig up all the happy reports and the truth of the matter has never even entered the attention span of the royally-effed-over working class voters.
Aw come on... they're not trying to end your existence. They just don't want to be alive or exist.
Okay wait actually some DO want to end your existence directly. But most wished if you just died.
Most of them would be fine if you just denied everything about yourself that didn't conform and pretended to be just like them.
Editors note: This only applies if you’re a white man. Other demographics are not allowed to conform.
If you were to try to argue their view, I think they would say that their only problem is when you exhibit immortal behavior. Their definition of immoral behavior isn't the only historic definition but is certainly a prominent one.
I exhibit immortal behavior every day by not dying.
Sure, but the Christian/MAGA view of morality is a shit one that I don't subscribe to. They can fuck off with their moralizing of my decisions.
I'd be fine with them if they weren't constantly shoving it in our faces. Think about the children!
And then they put that stuff in classrooms! How disgusting
I have [a] conservative family.
To be conservative in 2024, you have to dismiss that some people in our community are miserable and every day we leave them to their fate is heinous.
In the US, a failure to vote [against] any given Republican (by voting [for] an opposing democrat) is another step towards autocracy and genocide. Every Republican in office is a force towards the Heritage Foundation's 2025 project, by which they will unmake the meager democratic features and civil rights that remain in the US.
Conservatives believe, by the natural extrapolation of their positions and behavior, I have no right to exist. (Curiously, this includes my own father, who simultaneously facilitates political efforts seeking out my extinction while expressing a dissonant interest in my well-being. He doesn't dare connect the two in his mind.)
I'm so terribly sorry.
You both deserve to exist and most likely rock out loud :)
A conservative you are guilted into seeing occasionally? We call that family
If anyone knows about toxic family dynamics it’s Neptune.
Honestly Neptune could be pretty toxic himself sometimes
To be clear: I’m not going to bat for any gods over here, but a lot of his bad pr was from the Greek franchise.
I don't have Muslim friends who preach for all out jihad and the destruction of American democracy.
I don't have conservative friends who preach for all out insurrection and the destruction of American democracy.
Some choices aren't difficult.
I wouldn't say "preach" but I do have conservative friends that openly tell me that being gay or trans is wrong. (I'm trans, and they know this). I'd love it if they kept that shit in the privacy of their own homes
These people aren't actually your friends
To be fair it rarely comes up, and they're not really judging me over it. It's just shit like complaining about pronouns. Or if we're talking about religion they're usually pretty clear that they don't think I'm disgusting or anything, they're just holding to what they think is biblical.
But it does kinda feel bad knowing that they'd vote away my right to HRT in a heartbeat
Or maybe realize that the human race is on a collision course with a hot, chaotic destiny in the form of climate change coupled with economic collapse. Maybe it's time to solidify our networks instead of silently praying the 'other' changes or dies?
Some kind of friend, huh
America has democracy??
Officially.
Allegedly
It's a Republic because the wealthy knew the people would get it wrong and they needed representative government rather than democracy
Ostensibly. On paper.
Not only does it have democracy, it also has socialism! You just have to be ultra rich or a mega corporation.
To be fair, subsidies aren't really Socialism. Socialism is more about who owns the Means of Production than it is who gets the benefits from the state.
The paradox of tolerance says if we tolerate intolerance, then intolerance will dominate. Or something.
The social contract solution is pretty solid. If you are intolerant of other people first, you lose protection of the contract and others will be intolerant of you without penalty.
The problem on Lemmy is that this gets combined with overgeneralized binary thinking, and all loosely "conservative" people get strawmanned as the intolerant outgroup, which, when this happens, actually does make you the guilty party.
Then maybe it's time to start considering if conservative values have a place in our world? What does being conservative entail other than limiting the freedoms of other humans and refusing to spend money on anything but the military? Please give me a legitimate reason why we need to resist progress?
There's a general difference between conservative and regressive, or reactionary. Being conservative in the true meaning of the word can simply mean that you have a preference to wait and see, to, if in doubt, stick with the old and trusted. And there's nothing wrong with that: It's a good idea to have new ideas, but following every new idea blindly? Not so much. Society needs inertia, and that means both moving forward and not moving faster than we can actually adapt to ourselves changing. And we all have that in us. To different degrees, but it doesn't get more than 70% progressive or 70% conservative, in my observation.
That's because there's absolutely nothing wrong with lentil stew. It is, like so many things, tradition, "tradition" in the sense of a sum of successful innovations. Does anyone here have any problems with traditional woodwork? No? Thought so. Even the woodworking innovators respect it.
How to distinguish reactionaries from such true conservatives? Easy, actually: Reactionaries will invoke a past that never was, trying to move there, betraying that they're actually terminally misguided progressives. They do that in defence of failed innovations -- such as the nuclear family, or capitalism, or whatever.
I appreciate your honest response but, I haven't heard those intentions from anyone claiming to be conservative until just now.
I think it's fine to celebrate traditions, even fine to share them when asked, or offer to share them with people you know. My family makes these really specific pancakes for holidays, I love making those, great tradition. Some families deny their children basic healthcare because, traditionally their faith tells them to and that's child abuse, awful tradition. I get what you mean but it's a pretty shaky argument. As for waiting and reacting, how much longer do we need to wait to react to things like climate change, the homelessness epidemic, the opioid crisis, childhood cancer? If any of your traditions are against solving those problems, I'm sorry but I'm against those traditions and they aren't compatible with modern society.
I'm curious, why not find a new title for your political beliefs, and shame modern conservatives who line their pockets with money from big corporations? Sounds like the conservative badge isn't quite reflecting what you'd like it to anymore.
I’m curious, why not find a new title for your political beliefs, and shame modern conservatives who line their pockets with money from big corporations? Sounds like the conservative badge isn’t quite reflecting what you’d like it to anymore.
I'm an Anarchist, a widely misunderstood term. I thus emphasise with actual conservatives who are similarly misunderstood, is all.
how much longer do we need to wait to react to things like climate change, the homelessness epidemic, the opioid crisis, childhood cancer?
We don't. Oh wait opioid crisis you mean the US, and your use of epidemic isn't hyperbole.
E.g. farmers over here don't mind environmentalism, they mind being told what to do by Greens who fail to care about farmers still being able to earn a living -- they're getting squeezed by supermarkets and agricultural subsidies, for decades, were designed to kill off family-sized farms. People don't mind electric cars they mind having to pay for a new one, doubly so while absolutely nothing got invested into rail over the decades and the FDP penny-pinched the 49 Euro ticket. People don't mind new building developments they mind that what gets built (by private developers) is way too expensive. People, and this is very telling, don't mind wind mills as such they mind not owning them: In SH, on the countryside, where mills are largely owned by municipal cooperatives, everyone is in favour, in MV, where they don't have much money at all to invest, they do mind as it's big corporations from the city who put the mills there. And this goes deep, studies show how subsonic noise emissions from those mills are calming to one group and a stressor for the other.
Things like cars and intensive, import-dependent agriculture aren't actually successful innovations, but mobility of people and everyone being fed are successful innovations. It's especially in these areas where trouble arises when so-called progressives declare the unsuccessful part evil but don't bother to protect the successful parts, thinking their part is done by fighting something, instead of building something new to replace it.
So, how long do we need to take until the US gets its act together? Exactly as long as it takes for progressives to realise that everything is going to change much faster if they care about being popular with the conservative crowd. Not the MAGAs and crazy evangelicals, forget about them, they're a symptom, not a cause.
Oh, last thing: Jehovah's Witnesses over here accept blood donations etc. for their kids. They had to change doctrine to get the status of a public-law church. I think they used an anabaptist-like "religious duty only starts when you're old enough to practice it" kind of reasoning -- that's a good innovation, isn't it?
I think you fail to account for the people that just don't care or are too (morally or otherwise) corrupt to care. You will not get a CxU voter to vote for anything else than their christian conservative values where anything against the status quo is bad.
A simple fact is that actions to minimize climate change will never be popular because it will affect most people in significant ways and it will hurt. We still need to do this, though. Conservatives are so hyperfocused on not changing anything and making other people's lives miserable that they cannot see what is coming to all of us not in the far future but potentially really soon.
There is no time to appease the conservatives and do things more their way to be more popular, because as the Americans say "if you give an inch they take a mile". Nothing will happen and that is something we all can't afford.
What it ultimately comes down to is corporate interest. Conservative parties will do nothing until it is in the interest of the corporations that fund them and their corrupt politicians. As you can see with the 49€ ticket, the railway maintenance or basically anything in control of FDP, CxU or SPD
You will not get a CxU voter to vote for anything else than their christian conservative values where anything against the status quo is bad.
Aside from LNG terminals, do you see anything wrong with this? And now don't tell me "That's SH you people are superior in any way so of course your CDU is sane", in BW the Greens are conservative and could, long-term, displace the CDU. Environmentalism is not exactly incompatible with Christian conservatism.
Then there's the difference in creed -- SH is very predominantly Lutheran, BW Catholic. Miles and miles of differences in official doctrine. That doesn't suddenly make the EKD progressive -- it simply isn't reactionary. At least hasn't been since 68, thereabouts.
Speaking about SH and the 49 Euro ticket: State employees get a rebate, welfare recipients don't. That's also CDU. It's not even "fuck the poor" but "also in poverty, one should be humble" (which yes sounds the same if you're not a Christian). But I really rather fight with proper conservatives about such stuff than with reactionaries about the right to exist of trans folks or something.
...maybe this just is about us actually having at least a semblance of proper conservatives over here and progressives elsewhere can't fathom non-insane conservatives existing.
There is no time to appease the conservatives
I did not, in a single sentence, mention or imply appeasement. I said that progressives should start to care about preserving what's already good while implementing, and advocating, change. Even better: Frame your change specifically as preserving something good. Occasionally it will require re-thinking the way you want to implement things (generally for the better), very often it's just a matter of framing and messaging.
When the likes of Maaßen want to destroy civil liberties that's not conserving the status quo, and it's also not preserving something good. It's not conservative in any sensible meaning of the word at all.
What I see is a bunch of promises that will never happen. 16 years of CDU rule before the current government has shown exactly that. Claiming to do and actually doing it is a huge difference.
in BW the Greens are conservative and could, long-term, displace the CDU
That is just delusional. Every single conservative party is blaming all the problems and failings of the current government on the greens. There is no way that they will ever overtake CDU as the conservative party. All that is not even accounting that most of the greens and their voters do not want to be more conservative.
Then there's the difference in creed -- SH is very predominantly Lutheran, BW Catholic. Miles and miles of differences in official doctrine.
Okay, and? Shouldn't politics and religion be as far apart as can be? Religion is notoriously slow in change and noone has the time to wait for religious conservatives to arrive in 2024.
But I really rather fight with proper conservatives about such stuff than with reactionaries about the right to exist of trans folks or something.
So human rights are not a good enough reason to fight conservatives?! I myself am not trans or queer in any way but something doesn't have to affect me personally to see how harmfull it is. It is quite telling that this is again just a question of money. You would rather fight for money than for your fellow human.
...maybe this just is about us actually having at least a semblance of proper conservatives over here and progressives elsewhere can't fathom non-insane conservatives existing.
SH is not the pinnacle of Germany and it also has its problems and if it is oh so great, why do they not lead by example?
I said that progressives should start to care about preserving what's already good while implementing, and advocating, change.
If conservatives anywhere would be like "Hey we see the problem. Let's fix this in a reasonable way " they wouldn't be conservatives. It is that easy. The notion that progressives will just change stuff for the fun of changing things is frankly ridiculous. Times are changing and we have to change too to survive. This has been a law of nature for as long as life has existed.
When the likes of Maaßen want to destroy civil liberties that's not conserving the status quo, and it's also not preserving something good. It's not conservative in any sensible meaning of the word at all.
You are right, this isn't preserving something good. It is "returning to the good days" that christian conservatives want, because they don't like the world changing. Returning to the time they think was the best is apparently better than just accepting change and adapting.
This is not even a problem of only the Christian conservatives but all of them. Lindner and the FDP want to basically make billionaires rule the world while everyone else slaves their lifes away for them.
What I see is a bunch of promises that will never happen. 16 years of CDU rule before the current government has shown exactly that.
? CDU is in power in SH since 2017, re-elected 2022 taking over from the SPD, before that 2005-2012 CDU, before that 1988-2005 SPD.
And we have a fuckton of wind mills: We're already producing quite a bit more than 100% of what we need and are continuing to expand. It's not a partisan issue.
All that is not even accounting that most of the greens and their voters do not want to be more conservative.
The greens, and their voters, already are conservative in BW. Note that I said BW, not SH, not the federal level.
Shouldn’t politics and religion be as far apart as can be?
Should and are are two different things. The question you should ask is: Is it easier to turn people away from the Church or to reform the Church, and as even the Catholics are right now reforming I think you should rather applaud them, and strengthen and support Catholics in that change, than saying, warning hyperbole, "Nooo come to me to Satan's side with lots of gay sex". That would only cause reactionary stroppiness.
So human rights are not a good enough reason to fight conservatives?!
I don't have to fight the SH CDU on those issues because they're not trying genocide trans people. They'd get into all kinds of trouble with the Lutheran church if they did that kind of messaging because the Lutheran church is very keen on that whole love your neighbour thing: They don't want hate campaigns to poison people's souls. And I see nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with that.
SH is not the pinnacle of Germany and it also has its problems and if it is oh so great, why do they not lead by example?
We are, and we are. This is not up to discussion. Just a bit further south in the Bavarian town of Hamburg, then-mayor Scholz defended torturing people with emetics. Wouldn't happen here.
If conservatives anywhere would be like "Hey we see the problem. Let’s fix this in a reasonable way " they wouldn’t be conservatives.
If you define conservatives to not include conservatives, sure. Bismarck introduced universal healthcare to conserve public peace (less charitably, to stop people switching sides to the SPD).
The notion that progressives will just change stuff for the fun of changing things is frankly ridiculous.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Often there's just a pet project and people want to see it implemented, blind to alternatives. Like recently with the heat pump saga: Lots of (affluent) green voters and party members thinking "yes we're happy with our new heat pump let's make sure everyone has them", ignoring that the better solution, both in climate and social terms, is to invest heavily in district heating. Which then can use heat pumps of course. Antagonising gazillions of very much not affluent home owners for no reason whatsoever due to to the Greens being (practically speaking) unwilling to conserve the little socio-economic status that those home owners have.
? CDU is in power in SH since 2017, re-elected 2022 taking over from the SPD, before that 2005-2012 CDU, before that 1988-2005 SPD.
I am not talking about SH because SH is just ONE part of Germany. The german Government was 16 years of sleeping on issues that needed solutions asap. Not all was bad, but in terms of future proofing Germany there wasn't a lot.
And we have a fuckton of wind mills: We’re already producing quite a bit more than 100% of what we need and are continuing to expand. It’s not a partisan issue.
Okay, that is irrelevant as a reason that not all conservatives think like that. If they wouldn't be one of the first affected states they would just do what CDU does in other places since these politicians wouldn't be part of CDU otherwise.
The greens, and their voters, already are conservative in BW. Note that I said BW, not SH, not the federal level.
Sure, that is not a thing on the federal level, though, which is what I was talking about. Even in BW I see it as delusional to think the greens could overtake CDU but that is just my opinion.
Should and are are two different things. The question you should ask is: Is it easier to turn people away from the Church or to reform the Church, and as even the Catholics are right now reforming I think you should rather applaud them, and strengthen and support Catholics in that change, than saying, warning hyperbole, “Nooo come to me to Satan’s side with lots of gay sex”. That would only cause reactionary stroppiness.
When the biggest conservative Party has christian literally in their name religion and politics can't be that separated. I for one think that the world is better off without religions but that not realistically ever happening, so reform is the only option. That doesn't mean that we have to be happy with the slow speed of reform and the stubbornness of a lot of believers in certain matters. Some things just aren't up for debate and have to be accepted.
I don’t have to fight the SH CDU on those issues because they’re not trying genocide trans people. They’d get into all kinds of trouble with the Lutheran church if they did that kind of messaging because the Lutheran church is very keen on that whole love your neighbour thing: They don’t want hate campaigns to poison people’s souls. And I see nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with that.
That is good on a regional level but federally you can see a very alarming trend. Only thinking regionally is not the play. We NEED to fight for this everywhere because this may not be a thing now in SH but it may be a thing in the future. Also Lutheran church is just as likely as other denominations to just say they love but in actuality not loving at all. Just saying they don't want that doesn't mean that that is the truth. There are more than enough lutherans that hate just as much as catholics.
We are, and we are. This is not up to discussion. Just a bit further south in the Bavarian town of Hamburg, then-mayor Scholz defended torturing people with emetics. Wouldn’t happen here.
Oh so you feel superior? Any point you make is irrelevant then. A feeling of superiority doesn't let you see things objectively. I also categorize SPD as conservative btw and think Scholz is neither a good chanselor nor a progressive and he should be banned from any political role for this and his involvement in the CumEx scandal.
If you define conservatives to not include conservatives, sure. Bismarck introduced universal healthcare to conserve public peace (less charitably, to stop people switching sides to the SPD).
Conservatives only care about things that either affect them directly or their rule. Naming one good thing that one conservative has done while not mentioning that current conservatives are trying to undermine that very thing is disingenuous at best.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Often there’s just a pet project and people want to see it implemented, blind to alternatives.
So we are just going to ignore all the pet projects of conservatives, for example Scheuers car toll, that cost the tax payer a huge amount of money while accomplishing nothing? Pet projects are stupid and shouldn't be a thing. I doubt you would find a progressive that disagrees.
Like recently with the heat pump saga: Lots of (affluent) green voters and party members thinking “yes we’re happy with our new heat pump let’s make sure everyone has them”, ignoring that the better solution, both in climate and social terms, is to invest heavily in district heating.
And your opinion on that matter is the only correct one? How about we listen to experts that know what they are talking about instead of politicians that are heavily invested in a different outcome.
Well, there is a value in conserving nature and the environment. It's just that somehow conservative values generally contradict conserving things that are in danger, really.
Yeah, my mind has completely separated conservation with conservative. Most folks I know concerned with conservation efforts, are progressive. Most conservatives I know, want to watch the world burn to turn a profit.
Because the feelings of the people who would be affected negatively by progress are as valid as yours.
Okay but if progress means validating people who are made to feel invalid by a lack of progress, we're just in the tolerance paradox with different words.
Yeah, notice how you are now talking like "them".
Like who?
Who would be affected negatively by progress but the extremely wealthy?
If I go hey black guy I’ll tolerate you if you tolerate me
We agree
Hey gay person I’ll tolerate your differences if you tolerate my differences
Hey nazi-
He doesn’t tolerate us so he is not protected by the social contract and then we don’t have to tolerate Mr Nazi
I have a couple of conservative friends. We just don't talk about politics or the issues of the day. Surprisingly it's not that hard.
You know, there's so many people I have tried this with. They just won't stop bringing it up even when it is completely unrelated to what we're doing. One of them told me he feels smart because when that comes up I usually walk away to avoid the endless drama and he took that to mean that his position and opinions had so confounded me that leaving was my only way to respond.
Stuff like "yeah I think religion should be enshrined in the Constitution and everyone should have to live by our rules" and "if women don't want to have kids they should keep their legs closed".
Like, even if I thought engaging had any chance of working it's just such braindead regurgitated Fox talking points that I wouldn't engage anyway. Just waiting for these people to get everything they want and suffer for it.
A distressing number of people seem to have inhibition problems.
A further distressing number are narcissists.
We shouldn't be surprised though, that's exactly how they were programmed. The more it became acceptable to pander to our baser instincts, the more profitable it became and the more profit driven concerns did it. The more screen time we had in our upbringing (back when we called it 'tv') the more likely we are to have taken on the programming of exceptionalism and decide that what's good for everyone isn't what's good for us.
I don't necessarily think it was planned that way, but the people who thought that it might be the result were relegated to the fringe.
No no no, don't you see? You need to cutoff all communication with them and get them arrested and ruin their lives bro.
I mean, I'm sorry, but if they believe that abortion is baby murder, black people are predisposed to being criminals, poor people don't deserve to have healthcare, and trans kids should have to live in a miserable hell that makes them want to commit suicide, I'm not going to just "not talk about it" and stay friends with them. If your morals are that fucked, I can't in good conscience call you a friend.
Do you think this is what "conservative" means, like completely honestly?
It is when they vote for people who outwardly say that shit. I don't care what they claim to believe, I only care what their actions say they believe. I don't know a single "conservative" who wouldn't vote for a politician aiming to infringe upon minority rights, and if you're voting for people who want me to be forced to bear a child I don't want, or who want my trans sibling to be banned from receiving life-saving medical care, or who want to deregulate the medical industry so that insurance companies and profit-hospital CEOs can line their pockets at the expense of the working class, or who want to give more money to racist cops who harass my black friends? Then you can talk about how you don't hate trans people all you want but the consequences of your actions say otherwise. You can say abortion doesn't bother you but I don't believe you. You can say "well, I have a black friend" but you're still voting for racists. And I'm sorry, but that makes you a bad person and I won't be friends with a bad person.
Maybe in other countries it's different. But American conservatives only want to "conserve" the status quo of rich white people doing whatever they want and everyone else getting fucked. They can deny it, but until they stop voting for it there's zero reason to believe them.
Have you been living under a rock the past ~8 years? Those bullet points are central to the current GOP's platform. That's what you're voting for when you vote republican.
so I guess that means I'm pro bomb since I voted Biden 2020. damn. ill let the kids know
I think that's what mainstream US conservatism and its adherents think that's what "conservative" means. And honestly, that's pretty much been the undercurrent of US conservatism for over 20 years, they're just now saying the quiet parts out loud.
I think the term's meaning shifts greatly depending on the country.
In Finland, a whole lot of conservative politicians voted in favour of less restrictive abortion laws and their conservative party is in favour of same-sex marriage.
Every conservative I know or knew is walking around with pent-up anger, seemingly ready explode over whatever their handlers in the media have railed them up against that day. I guess that is what keeps them active at the ballot box and prevents them from taking a step back, calming down, thinking and questioning the narrative. Either way, it became pretty much impossible to have any kind of outing with these people present.
It's gotten really tiresome to even look for common ground anymore. Things that were fine just yesterday suddenly make them foam at the mouth. And lately, the persecution complex, too.
Hmm part of it might be that I'm in eastern Canada where there are still 'progessive conservatives' and people don't seem to care so much about politics anyway.
A world away from the USA in terms of media influence.
So, you're saying you are okay with hanging out with people who are completely okay with the oppression and marginalization of minorities. You choose to keep people around who want other people to loose thier rights. You keep people in your life that support book banning and information suppression.
I would not hang out with you.
Not really. You just know really awful conservatives.
The primary difference is, I can throw a party, I can have my trans friends gay friends Muslim friends black friends, and Latino friends All in the same room. Then I can leave the room to go take care of something and not have to worry that any one person in the room is going to say "you people".
To be very honest I do have some somewhat conservative friends, They mostly worry that legislation will even the playing field and all their lifelong hard work will be for nothing. Which is still a pretty shitty outlook but I can understand it. They spent 10 years of their life putting our kids through college and all of a sudden colleges free.
"I had to suffer, so everyone else should too." is NOT a valid reason to push back against progress.
Yep. Falls into the "Fuck you I got mine" category.
Every time I hear that I'm like, "So YOU made your car, home, smart phone, EVERYTHING, yourself? Without the help of any other human being? Congratulations on being so self-sufficient, clearly you don't need money, or to see a doctor, or to hire a specialist for anything, you can do it all!"
That's my stance too. If I put a group of people in a room, ideally everyone works together.
Thats not a thing with conservatives. They'll be starting fights with everyone and then blame that they're oppressed.
Depends really heavily on how fundamentalist that Muslim friend is, comrade.
If they are Muslim in the same way that Joe Biden is a Christian, then yeah.
If they are a Wahhabist, then may Allah help the gays, because the Wahhabist sure as hell won't.
I have 4 Muslim friends, 3 of them would never say a bad word about anyone even in confidence. The forth one would in fact say something about someone, but never to their face. I'm sure there are extremists out there, but by the numbers, 6/10 Christians can't help but preach to people.
I think that it really depends on how much the religion is screwing the government.
Muslims from secular lands (for instance Kazakhstan) are usually chill.
Muslims from theocracies (for instance Saudi Arabia) often aren't.
Christians from secular countries (say, Spain) are usually chill.
Christians from the land of fundies (Uganda) are not.
The 6/10 is there because a casual believer is indistinguishable from a nonbeliever in most cases. Muslims are noticeably different, and so you notice them easier, thus giving you better statistics.
I should note that my thoughts on the matter are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and that you shouldn't treat my words as Itmām al-hujjah (heh).
Yeah anecdotal here too. good info though, always good to see different sides of situations from sane people.
Glad I could be useful. Cheers!
You don't choose sexual orientation, race, nationality, body you're born into.
Conservatism is a choice! And it's arguably the wrong one
Ehhh. I understand their logic at this point. It makes sense to them.
That being said, the basis for that logic is rather insane, so take that as you will.
Look, I don't agree with them either, but if you understand them, then you can pre-empt their arguments. This doesn't seem to be something that politicians on "the left" can do.... So they put forward these very sensible and logical motions, and get torn to shreds by the opposition.
I don't have conservative friends because I'm not friends with toxic people. I wish them well all dead
I don't care what you believe or what direction you lean politically. I won't be friends with jerkoffs and assholes.
That being said, all my friends are left-leaning. 🤷♂️
Why are they leaving the left? Seems kinda sus
Thanks! Auto-carrot kind of screwed me there. I fixed it.
Have a good day stranger.
Auto-carat*
🚗🥕
I don't agree with the fascist lifestyle. I think they should keep it behind closed doors. On another planet. Not this one.
Do you want moon nazis? 'Cuz that's how ypu get moon nazis.
Not even that moldy tbh. just not cracked and deep fried enough for non mondays.
shifts uncomfortably
Nope! I know what conservatives want and what they stand for, when I tell them to fuck off it's with pride and volume. Conservative isn't a race, a color, a religion or a sexuality. It's not beyond your control. It's a series of moral decisions made by a fully competent adult who can absolutely be held responsible for what they believe and what they try to do with their power in the world.
Wow, sometimes I invoke Poe's law when people say no one here gets a joke, but like what the hell happens here
It's clearly just joking mirroring. Of course we don't want intolerant people in our discourse.
I have conservative friends. Almost all of them oppose Trump. The point you think you’re making isn’t as clear as you think. The narrative of someone using the “I’m a conservative and I’m being silenced/discriminated” isn’t coming from actual conservatives but rather from MAGA and white nationalist clowns pushing a hateful, un-Christian, not actually classic conservative agenda.
I think it's a joke at the expense of many who deserve it.
Wouldn't a Muslim friend be conservative?
From persnoal experience, not really. Only some are, just like how some Christians are too and not all of them. Humans will always human, no matter the label.
Honestly when I lived in the US, the Conservative xtian thing really surprised me.
Here in the UK xtians tend to be left of center. And the center is historica,ly way more left then the US left.
US Conservative ideals really do not seem even close to the xtian teaching I grew up around.
In the US, evangelical xtians focus a lot more on the old testament. That yields a lot more fire and brimstone with a particular focus on punishment. This is where you find all the stories about god turning people into pillars of salt and committing genocide because he was grumpy. The new testament, i.e. the teachings of Jesus, focuses on kindness and compassion. Focusing on new or old testaments will yield wildly different moral structures.
Isn't the old testament a retelling of Torah? So maybe they should consider Judaism then 🤔
That's because all the conservative Christians either got kicked out, fled, or otherwise ended up in the New World a few centuries ago. They really lean into the prosperity gospel nowadays as well, which is all kinds of problematic.
Seriously flawed view of europeen religiose history. Most of the last 200 years has been way more Conservative then current us.
Even mild progerivism only started to take hold in Europe ixtians n the 1900s.
Love your user name
Maybe I'm right, I am very against forcing morality on non-Christians due to what St Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:12. Although some people get upset at me because they ask me my opinion on what I think is right and wrong and I give them an answer they didn't want 😂
Fellow Christian here: thanks for this verse. It'll be helpful with dealing with the conservatives around me.
God bless you
Not necessarily. Not all Christians are conservative either.
Yyeap that is how it feels to be a conservative today..... Cant say you are a conservative cause people will call you "rasist" "bigot" "sexist" "transphobic" and so on. Just because you think a 9 month old baby should have the same rights as a newborn.
Or because you think we should have rules (and we do) behind how people cross the border.
Or because you think people should pay money back if they barrow money.
Just some thoughts that will get you banned from social media.
Or because you think people should pay money back if they barrow money.
Except of course PPP loans. Student loans for sure need to be paid back, but the free money the wealthy got from the gubermint is fine.
Not not saying its fine, all Im saying its you should be responsable its all. Seems like its not a popular opinion today....
If people are calling you racist, bigoted, sexist, and transphobic simply because you identify as a conservative, you should probably reevaluate your positions and if you truly identify with conservative values.
Nobody is aborting 9 month old fetuses outside of exceptional medical emergencies, and denying women bodily autonomy is incredibly authoritarian.
Nobody thinks there shouldn't be any rules about crossing borders, even the fringe people that are for open borders. What people disagree with is intentionally drowning people via razorwire as a deterrent, and instead want an easier path to citizenship.
Everyone thinks paying debts is a good thing, but may disagree on what constitutes a faulty, predatory system of debt that ought to be abolished in the first place, like medical debt and school debt.
The thoughts you listed alone will not get you banned from social media (outside of specific communities for specific purposes), what would is how you express those views, which can in fact be sexist, bigoted, or perhaps even racist or transphobic.
Nobody is aborting 9 month old fetuses outside of exceptional medical emergencies, and denying women bodily autonomy is incredibly authoritarian.
Nobody is aborting 9-month-old fetuses at all. Unless that fetus is already dead or dying, 9 months is well past the point of viability.
24 weeks (5 months and some change) is when a fetus could viably survive outside the womb with medical intervention. 9 months is at the point of being fully developed, even if it is a couple weeks premature.
Almost all abortions happen at 10 weeks or less, well before the point of viability. Almost no abortions happen after 24 weeks. Definitely none happening at 9 months.
Yes, absolutely correct, thanks for expanding.
What 9 month old baby has less rights than a newborn? Edit: or vice versa.
I'm gonna charitably guess he means a unborn baby at nine months, but... Does he think those are aborted or some?
You are somehow correct. I do mean nine month unborn baby, its not my opinion if they are killed or not, depends on the state some will allow you to kill your 9 month old baby.
No they fucking don't. Unless there's lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother, no one is aborting babies at 9 months. Ffs turn off Fox News already.
fyi you keep linking to this site but it says the article no longer exists
A quick google search you can find out the states where is legal to kill a 9month old baby
With a quick Google search I can also find out why the earth is in fact a flat triangle. You need to use your critical thinking skills and evaluate sources.
There are states without hard limits, but it is not "legal to kill a 9 month old baby".
Late term abortions are really rare and only performed if there is no chance of survival for the fetus while the mother is at risk.
If these horrible conditions are met, doctors will find out well before the 9th month, often before the 3rd trimester.
Sounds good.
Sounds like flat earth it is.... Sorry we could not have a usuful conversation.
Sorry but that's not true... either emergency c section at around 7 months onwards or regular delivery etc. No such thing as an abortion as far as Im aware. Is this what you think a "late term abortion" is?
No, this is what I mean:
[ Viability: 14 states ban abortions after the fetus is considered viable. Some laws that don't specify a limit say it's up to the abortion provider's "judgment" to determine whether a fetus is viable.
Third trimester: Virginia is the only state that prohibits abortions in the pregnancy's third trimester, which starts at around 25 weeks, per Guttmacher. It's also the lone southern state that hasn't banned or restricted abortion since the end of Roe.
Sure, but you have the logic backwards. Viability isnt used so that people can get an abortion even though the baby can survive, its so the physician can make the judgement to deliver a baby that can survive instead of attempting an abortion - when the mothers life is in danger.
There is no magic cut off date, where all babies are ready to deliver or will die. So basically the math goes like this: physician determines the mother will die if the baby does not come out. If they determine the baby is viable --> the baby comes out and is alive via medical procedure (not abortion). If they determine that the baby is not viable --> the baby comes out and cannot survive via medical procedure (abortion). Fyi, in case you think oh well, keep the baby in: the mom dies, the baby is not viable to survive and dies too. Thats it. No one is aborting babies that could be birthed and survive.
“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
This is a different situation than early pregnancy abortions. Different areas of focus, rights, benefits, ethics etc. Dont treat both rights as requiring the same logic to support.
It seems to me, at least, no matter what someones position is on early term terminations, late term is a slam dunk obvious answer. Leave the decision to the parents and their physicians, not lawyers and legislators.
I wish you were correct. But that is not the case.
"No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe."
No matter what the case is you dint have restictions.
Qe have to understand that the reason we have some laws is to protect the most inosent, specially those who cant defend themselfs. We do this with the older, handicaped and kids.
Kids are not able to drink, why? Why cant they smoke?
They are not mature enough to make desitions for themselves, so we take that responsability upon their parents.
So, should laws be put to protect the unborn babies? Is their life worth more or less then yours?
Why can you kill the baby before 9 months but not after? What is different?
"If the baby continues to develop it will kill the mother so lets kill the baby so the mother can live" is the argument before 9 months but never after 9 months.
Wow, you just completely ignored what he said, and quoted the same short sentence you quoted before as if it settles the issue.
I hope you're trolling, in which case: A+ effort, well done
Depends on the state, some mothers are able to kill their 9 month baby (does notmatter what the father opinion is)
Patently false. Nobody is aborting 9 month old unborn babies unless there's an immediate medical danger.
Have you ever considered that, at that late in the term, most of those mothers wanted their babies but had to abort to survive or because the fetus was already either dead or may as well have been? You talk like they’re just wantonly killing babies (just to spite men for some reason) because, idk, this is the future liberals want, drink blood, hail gay satan, whatever
If the babie is death then its not an abortion.
If the baby dies by natural reasons its not an abortion.
Drink blood? Hail gay? What are you talking about
If the babie is death then its not an abortion
Except that plenty of surgical abortions happen because the baby is already dead in the mother's uterus though.
Being dead doesn't magically teleport it away and it needs to be taken out for the mother to survive.
Which is, medically speaking, the same procedure as a surgical abortion.
From wikipidia:
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy
If the baby is dead the pregnancy has finished already.
The states that ban surgical abortions don't care about that and ban the procedures in talking about.
Not that you'd give a shit anyway.
Gdefinitions matter, and yes states that have banned abortion even have exceptions.
Defining what abortion is is the main point. Cant put something in to law if ita not define.
But what does it matter if some people would argue that "woman" does not have a meaning.
Do you know how they abort a 9 month old baby? A 6 month old, even?
They induce delivery or do a c section. You can't just vacuum it out or poison it or something - it's several pounds of flesh and bone, and (as always) the biggest issue is the skull. It's gotta come out, or the mother will die... Babies can die at any moment, and it will decompose. All that bacteria gets into the blood, and that bacteria poisons the blood... Sepsis is a death sentence - whether it's an organ or a fetus, it has to come out or your chances aren't good.
So you have to get the skull out - it's the widest part. So either induced delivery (the quicker, easier option), or it's surgery.
A C section is something that is extremely common and relatively safe - there's not really a third option unless the mother is likely to die from that or induced birth.
There's a whole approval process for non-standard procedures (or you'd lose your license and be begging for malpractice to drop you), and you'd need a specialist, probably a pediatric surgeon who does en-utero surgery. They'd also have to go through review and defend why it was medically necessary - they'd be risking their license and being dropped by malpractice insurance if they didn't have a very good argument.
It would be grueling too - it would be a long, physically intensive surgery for everyone involved. Extremely expensive too...
So you're doing an induced birth or a c section. It's also likely going to be automatically classified as a risky birth, because it's premature, so you'll be getting a more experienced surgeon and experienced nurses who have specialized in pre-mature births (possibly a special team, depending on the size of the hospital... But it'll be the most experienced people available).
These are going to be the people who devoted their life to giving babies every chance possible. I know several well... Let me share a couple stories I've heard.
An older couple was almost 9 months into the pregnancy, and very much wanted the child, especially knowing it was probably their last chance. It was an at risk pregnancy so they were watching closely, but seemed to be going along pretty well... They'd picked out a name and decorated the nursery, it could come any day now. Then suddenly, the woman felt pain, and they rushed in... The baby had died without warning. They were crushed, but they had to induce delivery. The nurse was delivering the corpse, and as the head came through it fell off.
The nurse blocked their view as she delivered the body, and took it over to the washing station. In cases like this, she'd clean and dress it, take a footprint and picture to give them something to keep, and let them hold their child once to give them a chance to say goodbye. So she did all that, bundled it in a blanket and covered the neck with a ribbon, and gave them that chance without them ever realizing.
In another case, a younger mother's health was going downhill midway through the pregnancy and she came in - the baby had died inside her some time ago, and she didn't realize. She was in bad shape because of sepsis, so immediately they induced delivery. It had rotted... The arms had already fallen off, and she delivered it in decomposing pieces. The nurse did a footprint, but didn't show the body.
But mostly, she delivered pre-mature births - babies that may or may not make it if she did everything she could. Even if it wasn't breathing or the heart wasn't beating, she put it on a ventilator and do infant CPR. Over the years she even learned to do weird things as a last ditch effort, like pricking the baby's foot with a needle or holding them at a certain angle... Giving dying babies every chance is what she's spent her life doing.
I did also ask about what they do in that situation, with a super late term abortion - they'd deliver the baby, and as soon as it was stable she'd whisk it away to the NICU. They then never mentioned it to the mother unless she directly asked... Apparently the mother usually doesn't, and so if it survives it goes up for whatever processes for adoption. If there's any kernel of truth in these stories, women might be leaving the hospital thinking their child is dead.
So I mentioned non-standard procedures risking everything - so there's a clear line here too. Part of the modern Hippocratic oath is to minimize harm... They can prioritize the mother's autonomy or health over the baby, but the baby has to come out. Maybe there's some crazy situation where killing the baby would improve the mothers chances, but without a pressing reason, the baby is going to get any chance they can give it.
But forget the laws. There's no way in hell they're killing babies just because the mother told them to... I've heard them talk shit about weird or stupid parents, but the only complaint I've ever heard about the babies is "it was really troublesome, it kept trying to die every time I looked away"
I would agree that some people have become hyper-sensitized towards any statement that might be interpreted as "racist", "sexist" or "transphobic", no thanks to a definite rise of those sentiments, mainly amongst conservatives. But I firmly believe this "they call anyone conservative a nazi/a racist/a transphobe/a xenophobe" claim is a persecution complex installed onto conservatives by the media to disarm the accusations and instead turn them into anger against the "other side."
If this is about the USA, abortion used to be legal up to 12 weeks after conception, 9 months would be crazy. Also, there is no open border, nor does the current government want that (they merely insist on proper procedure, aka rules, rather than letting people drown). Republicans will likely continue to reject border deals in order to keep the topic cooking until election day and to aid America's enemies in Russia.
I agree with a lot of your opinions here, I just don't understand what makes these examples intrinsically conservative.
I'm a liberal, but I don't believe in the breakdown of structure. A lot of those rules are in place for a reason - I'd argue the difference lies more in response.
...you were banned from a social media site for saying someone should pay back a debt?Which one, I'll stay as far away as possible, that's crazy fr 😯
I'm assuming he's referring to student loan forgiveness. I could see him getting banned from certain communities for saying he's against it.
Yeap that is correct. Creating irresponsable individuals (in my opinion you should be responsable for your acctions)
I think two things make up the core of the student loan problem.
Kids in high school are surrounded by rhetoric from every adult they might trust near-constantly insinuating that if you don't go to college you'll never make anything of yourself (this has been better recently, with more and more high school graduates being made abundantly aware of non-college options available to them)
Student loans are designed to spiral into lifelong debt. This one is a bit more anecdotal for me but a good few of my high school friends have paid back well beyond the initial sum of their student loans, yet their remaining balance is greater than they started.
Now I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but those who frame the issue as purely one of personal responsibility (i.e. "you took out a loan pay it back") are at best being unhelpfully reductive and at worst gaslighting.
Set aside, just for a moment, the abstract moral aspect of this position, and consider the purely utilitarian side. If such a huge portion of an entire generation's earnings are being funneled up to banks that talked them into a maybe-not-so-necessary college education when they were 17, they're not exactly enabled to spend money in local commerce. Money spent in local commerce is pretty good if you want an economy to thrive, and if you ask me, student debt forgiveness would substantially contribute to that. If you disagree then you disagree, but framing that disagreement as a moral superiority is immature.
A 3rd thing you forgot to mention
People will take a loan and study a carriers that dont pay enough for them to be able to pay back.
Meaning people will not study the market when they ask for a loan. If you need such a big loan you better be sure that you are going to be anle to pay it back.
How much money do people make right out if collage from the profession Im intented to study? Not enough? Then its nit a good invesment of time and money....
From a non-US standpoint I'd have to ask you why university costs money to attend in the first place. Shouldn't you instead give students money to cover living expenses etc. so that they can focus on their studies? So that everyone who might be able to graduate gets a go at it, regardless of their socio-economic background?
Universal education isn't exactly a new, radical position, Luther was advocating for a broad education for everyone back in the 1500s.
I wish nobidy had to work and everything was "free", but as they say everybody has to " eat". Profesors, personal, etc... Not to take in to account the equipment needed to run the clases (labs etc...).
Nothing is "free"
Nothing is “free”
Indeed not. Streets, for example, need building and maintenance... yet they are free to use. Why would you handle education any differently?
Why stop at education?
Why not housing, or food, or cars, or vacation?
Why work at all?
Why work? To fulfil your ambitions. To give to your fellow human beings.
It's really a funny thing: If you look at polls surrounding providing a universal basic income you see an overwhelming majority answer "I'd work about the same amount, maybe a bit less but not much" while the same majority also says "Most people would park themselves in front of the TV with a beer". The general attitude is "everyone is a lazy bum but me", see what capitalist realism has done to us. One of the worst innovations ever, conservatives really should rail against it given that it's new and harmful.
More into details: Education, housing, food, yes. Access to information and entertainment (internet), and healthcare. Cars, no, we should have proper public transport, vacation, depends: Do you want to spend money or visit balconia?
Hahahh so work so you feel good about yourself?
Oh God....
I pity you.
Housing, food, and transportation should indeed be decommodified. Vacation is a luxury, and doesn't need to be free at point of service.
People work because they still need to. Do you get paid to clean your room? Even then, you'd still get paid, but certain things should not be extorted by profit.
Are you anti soup kitchen too lol
wait you probably hate the unhoused too
Yeah but from the perspective of a government paying for your citizens education reduces crime, increases revenue and helps your country stay on top from a technology point of view. It's a pretty safe investment that pays for itself. I graduated 5 years ago, university and college isnt free where i am but is subsidized (and also access to low interest gov't loans) I have already paid in taxes more than my education cost the government. If I work for another 20yrs that's easily a 4x on the initial investment.
Isn't Islam technically Conservative? I'm confused
Religion should be opposed via education, culture, and general science, not via the state. Religion is conservative, but there are good religious people.
All religions are technically conservative. Individuals have individual relationships with their religions though.
Over 1100 upvotes and 20 down votes has me cracking up.
There's nothing a conservative hates more than being judged by who they are as people. They think that tolerance means being a complete moral vacuum and accepting any sort of malevolence and violence. This is because they see people being tolerant of PoC, queer people and non-Christians and they also see membership in those categories as moral failings.
Somebody that's actively trying to end my existence isn't a friend.
I love that they excuse their vote as anything else.
And said tax cut will work like this:
Step 1: Before it happens, you're asked to publicly dream about what an extra $4000 will do for you on social media. Step 2: Once it passes, you get a 0.1% tax cut. Enough for one extra pizza. Per year. The bill will also includes 3 tax raises only for the poor, one every 4 years that follow. Step 3: The corporation you work for, meanwhile, gets a 16% tax cut. With it, they'll announce a $2000 one-time payment to all workers. Which will be rescinded as soon as it's been reported about on local news. The bill also includes 3 further, even bigger tax cuts for the rich, one every 4 years.
End result: taxes raised on the poor, taxes lowered for the rich, but lots of social media euphoria from the working class, lots of newspaper clippings of bosses giving their workers generous one-time payments (that never materialized). And next election cycle, Fox News can dig up all the happy reports and the truth of the matter has never even entered the attention span of the royally-effed-over working class voters.
Aw come on... they're not trying to end your existence. They just don't want to be alive or exist.
Okay wait actually some DO want to end your existence directly. But most wished if you just died.
Most of them would be fine if you just denied everything about yourself that didn't conform and pretended to be just like them.
Editors note: This only applies if you’re a white man. Other demographics are not allowed to conform.
If you were to try to argue their view, I think they would say that their only problem is when you exhibit immortal behavior. Their definition of immoral behavior isn't the only historic definition but is certainly a prominent one.
I exhibit immortal behavior every day by not dying.
Sure, but the Christian/MAGA view of morality is a shit one that I don't subscribe to. They can fuck off with their moralizing of my decisions.
It's ok not tolerating intolerant people.
You've become the intolerant. I can't tolerate that. Repeat.
You've become the intolerant. You can't tolerate that.
error: success
Fuck building bridges. Everybody start digging a graveyard for the things that need to die.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBAQFzMKpdA
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://m.piped.video/watch?v=ZBAQFzMKpdA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I'd be fine with them if they weren't constantly shoving it in our faces. Think about the children!
And then they put that stuff in classrooms! How disgusting
I have [a] conservative family.
To be conservative in 2024, you have to dismiss that some people in our community are miserable and every day we leave them to their fate is heinous.
In the US, a failure to vote [against] any given Republican (by voting [for] an opposing democrat) is another step towards autocracy and genocide. Every Republican in office is a force towards the Heritage Foundation's 2025 project, by which they will unmake the meager democratic features and civil rights that remain in the US.
Conservatives believe, by the natural extrapolation of their positions and behavior, I have no right to exist. (Curiously, this includes my own father, who simultaneously facilitates political efforts seeking out my extinction while expressing a dissonant interest in my well-being. He doesn't dare connect the two in his mind.)
I'm so terribly sorry.
You both deserve to exist and most likely rock out loud :)
A conservative you are guilted into seeing occasionally? We call that family
If anyone knows about toxic family dynamics it’s Neptune.
Honestly Neptune could be pretty toxic himself sometimes
To be clear: I’m not going to bat for any gods over here, but a lot of his bad pr was from the Greek franchise.
I don't have Muslim friends who preach for all out jihad and the destruction of American democracy.
I don't have conservative friends who preach for all out insurrection and the destruction of American democracy.
Some choices aren't difficult.
I wouldn't say "preach" but I do have conservative friends that openly tell me that being gay or trans is wrong. (I'm trans, and they know this). I'd love it if they kept that shit in the privacy of their own homes
These people aren't actually your friends
To be fair it rarely comes up, and they're not really judging me over it. It's just shit like complaining about pronouns. Or if we're talking about religion they're usually pretty clear that they don't think I'm disgusting or anything, they're just holding to what they think is biblical.
But it does kinda feel bad knowing that they'd vote away my right to HRT in a heartbeat
(@rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works also)
Sever.
Or maybe realize that the human race is on a collision course with a hot, chaotic destiny in the form of climate change coupled with economic collapse. Maybe it's time to solidify our networks instead of silently praying the 'other' changes or dies?
Some kind of friend, huh
America has democracy??
Officially.
Allegedly
It's a Republic because the wealthy knew the people would get it wrong and they needed representative government rather than democracy
Ostensibly. On paper.
Not only does it have democracy, it also has socialism! You just have to be ultra rich or a mega corporation.
To be fair, subsidies aren't really Socialism. Socialism is more about who owns the Means of Production than it is who gets the benefits from the state.
The paradox of tolerance says if we tolerate intolerance, then intolerance will dominate. Or something.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The social contract solution is pretty solid. If you are intolerant of other people first, you lose protection of the contract and others will be intolerant of you without penalty.
The problem on Lemmy is that this gets combined with overgeneralized binary thinking, and all loosely "conservative" people get strawmanned as the intolerant outgroup, which, when this happens, actually does make you the guilty party.
Then maybe it's time to start considering if conservative values have a place in our world? What does being conservative entail other than limiting the freedoms of other humans and refusing to spend money on anything but the military? Please give me a legitimate reason why we need to resist progress?
There's a general difference between conservative and regressive, or reactionary. Being conservative in the true meaning of the word can simply mean that you have a preference to wait and see, to, if in doubt, stick with the old and trusted. And there's nothing wrong with that: It's a good idea to have new ideas, but following every new idea blindly? Not so much. Society needs inertia, and that means both moving forward and not moving faster than we can actually adapt to ourselves changing. And we all have that in us. To different degrees, but it doesn't get more than 70% progressive or 70% conservative, in my observation.
That's because there's absolutely nothing wrong with lentil stew. It is, like so many things, tradition, "tradition" in the sense of a sum of successful innovations. Does anyone here have any problems with traditional woodwork? No? Thought so. Even the woodworking innovators respect it.
How to distinguish reactionaries from such true conservatives? Easy, actually: Reactionaries will invoke a past that never was, trying to move there, betraying that they're actually terminally misguided progressives. They do that in defence of failed innovations -- such as the nuclear family, or capitalism, or whatever.
I appreciate your honest response but, I haven't heard those intentions from anyone claiming to be conservative until just now.
I think it's fine to celebrate traditions, even fine to share them when asked, or offer to share them with people you know. My family makes these really specific pancakes for holidays, I love making those, great tradition. Some families deny their children basic healthcare because, traditionally their faith tells them to and that's child abuse, awful tradition. I get what you mean but it's a pretty shaky argument. As for waiting and reacting, how much longer do we need to wait to react to things like climate change, the homelessness epidemic, the opioid crisis, childhood cancer? If any of your traditions are against solving those problems, I'm sorry but I'm against those traditions and they aren't compatible with modern society.
I'm curious, why not find a new title for your political beliefs, and shame modern conservatives who line their pockets with money from big corporations? Sounds like the conservative badge isn't quite reflecting what you'd like it to anymore.
I'm an Anarchist, a widely misunderstood term. I thus emphasise with actual conservatives who are similarly misunderstood, is all.
We don't. Oh wait opioid crisis you mean the US, and your use of epidemic isn't hyperbole.
E.g. farmers over here don't mind environmentalism, they mind being told what to do by Greens who fail to care about farmers still being able to earn a living -- they're getting squeezed by supermarkets and agricultural subsidies, for decades, were designed to kill off family-sized farms. People don't mind electric cars they mind having to pay for a new one, doubly so while absolutely nothing got invested into rail over the decades and the FDP penny-pinched the 49 Euro ticket. People don't mind new building developments they mind that what gets built (by private developers) is way too expensive. People, and this is very telling, don't mind wind mills as such they mind not owning them: In SH, on the countryside, where mills are largely owned by municipal cooperatives, everyone is in favour, in MV, where they don't have much money at all to invest, they do mind as it's big corporations from the city who put the mills there. And this goes deep, studies show how subsonic noise emissions from those mills are calming to one group and a stressor for the other.
Things like cars and intensive, import-dependent agriculture aren't actually successful innovations, but mobility of people and everyone being fed are successful innovations. It's especially in these areas where trouble arises when so-called progressives declare the unsuccessful part evil but don't bother to protect the successful parts, thinking their part is done by fighting something, instead of building something new to replace it.
So, how long do we need to take until the US gets its act together? Exactly as long as it takes for progressives to realise that everything is going to change much faster if they care about being popular with the conservative crowd. Not the MAGAs and crazy evangelicals, forget about them, they're a symptom, not a cause.
Oh, last thing: Jehovah's Witnesses over here accept blood donations etc. for their kids. They had to change doctrine to get the status of a public-law church. I think they used an anabaptist-like "religious duty only starts when you're old enough to practice it" kind of reasoning -- that's a good innovation, isn't it?
I think you fail to account for the people that just don't care or are too (morally or otherwise) corrupt to care. You will not get a CxU voter to vote for anything else than their christian conservative values where anything against the status quo is bad.
A simple fact is that actions to minimize climate change will never be popular because it will affect most people in significant ways and it will hurt. We still need to do this, though. Conservatives are so hyperfocused on not changing anything and making other people's lives miserable that they cannot see what is coming to all of us not in the far future but potentially really soon.
There is no time to appease the conservatives and do things more their way to be more popular, because as the Americans say "if you give an inch they take a mile". Nothing will happen and that is something we all can't afford.
What it ultimately comes down to is corporate interest. Conservative parties will do nothing until it is in the interest of the corporations that fund them and their corrupt politicians. As you can see with the 49€ ticket, the railway maintenance or basically anything in control of FDP, CxU or SPD
Aside from LNG terminals, do you see anything wrong with this? And now don't tell me "That's SH you people are superior in any way so of course your CDU is sane", in BW the Greens are conservative and could, long-term, displace the CDU. Environmentalism is not exactly incompatible with Christian conservatism.
Then there's the difference in creed -- SH is very predominantly Lutheran, BW Catholic. Miles and miles of differences in official doctrine. That doesn't suddenly make the EKD progressive -- it simply isn't reactionary. At least hasn't been since 68, thereabouts.
Speaking about SH and the 49 Euro ticket: State employees get a rebate, welfare recipients don't. That's also CDU. It's not even "fuck the poor" but "also in poverty, one should be humble" (which yes sounds the same if you're not a Christian). But I really rather fight with proper conservatives about such stuff than with reactionaries about the right to exist of trans folks or something.
...maybe this just is about us actually having at least a semblance of proper conservatives over here and progressives elsewhere can't fathom non-insane conservatives existing.
I did not, in a single sentence, mention or imply appeasement. I said that progressives should start to care about preserving what's already good while implementing, and advocating, change. Even better: Frame your change specifically as preserving something good. Occasionally it will require re-thinking the way you want to implement things (generally for the better), very often it's just a matter of framing and messaging.
When the likes of Maaßen want to destroy civil liberties that's not conserving the status quo, and it's also not preserving something good. It's not conservative in any sensible meaning of the word at all.
What I see is a bunch of promises that will never happen. 16 years of CDU rule before the current government has shown exactly that. Claiming to do and actually doing it is a huge difference.
That is just delusional. Every single conservative party is blaming all the problems and failings of the current government on the greens. There is no way that they will ever overtake CDU as the conservative party. All that is not even accounting that most of the greens and their voters do not want to be more conservative.
Okay, and? Shouldn't politics and religion be as far apart as can be? Religion is notoriously slow in change and noone has the time to wait for religious conservatives to arrive in 2024.
So human rights are not a good enough reason to fight conservatives?! I myself am not trans or queer in any way but something doesn't have to affect me personally to see how harmfull it is. It is quite telling that this is again just a question of money. You would rather fight for money than for your fellow human.
SH is not the pinnacle of Germany and it also has its problems and if it is oh so great, why do they not lead by example?
If conservatives anywhere would be like "Hey we see the problem. Let's fix this in a reasonable way " they wouldn't be conservatives. It is that easy. The notion that progressives will just change stuff for the fun of changing things is frankly ridiculous. Times are changing and we have to change too to survive. This has been a law of nature for as long as life has existed.
You are right, this isn't preserving something good. It is "returning to the good days" that christian conservatives want, because they don't like the world changing. Returning to the time they think was the best is apparently better than just accepting change and adapting.
This is not even a problem of only the Christian conservatives but all of them. Lindner and the FDP want to basically make billionaires rule the world while everyone else slaves their lifes away for them.
? CDU is in power in SH since 2017, re-elected 2022 taking over from the SPD, before that 2005-2012 CDU, before that 1988-2005 SPD.
And we have a fuckton of wind mills: We're already producing quite a bit more than 100% of what we need and are continuing to expand. It's not a partisan issue.
The greens, and their voters, already are conservative in BW. Note that I said BW, not SH, not the federal level.
Should and are are two different things. The question you should ask is: Is it easier to turn people away from the Church or to reform the Church, and as even the Catholics are right now reforming I think you should rather applaud them, and strengthen and support Catholics in that change, than saying, warning hyperbole, "Nooo come to me to Satan's side with lots of gay sex". That would only cause reactionary stroppiness.
I don't have to fight the SH CDU on those issues because they're not trying genocide trans people. They'd get into all kinds of trouble with the Lutheran church if they did that kind of messaging because the Lutheran church is very keen on that whole love your neighbour thing: They don't want hate campaigns to poison people's souls. And I see nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with that.
We are, and we are. This is not up to discussion. Just a bit further south in the Bavarian town of Hamburg, then-mayor Scholz defended torturing people with emetics. Wouldn't happen here.
If you define conservatives to not include conservatives, sure. Bismarck introduced universal healthcare to conserve public peace (less charitably, to stop people switching sides to the SPD).
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Often there's just a pet project and people want to see it implemented, blind to alternatives. Like recently with the heat pump saga: Lots of (affluent) green voters and party members thinking "yes we're happy with our new heat pump let's make sure everyone has them", ignoring that the better solution, both in climate and social terms, is to invest heavily in district heating. Which then can use heat pumps of course. Antagonising gazillions of very much not affluent home owners for no reason whatsoever due to to the Greens being (practically speaking) unwilling to conserve the little socio-economic status that those home owners have.
I am not talking about SH because SH is just ONE part of Germany. The german Government was 16 years of sleeping on issues that needed solutions asap. Not all was bad, but in terms of future proofing Germany there wasn't a lot.
Okay, that is irrelevant as a reason that not all conservatives think like that. If they wouldn't be one of the first affected states they would just do what CDU does in other places since these politicians wouldn't be part of CDU otherwise.
Sure, that is not a thing on the federal level, though, which is what I was talking about. Even in BW I see it as delusional to think the greens could overtake CDU but that is just my opinion.
When the biggest conservative Party has christian literally in their name religion and politics can't be that separated. I for one think that the world is better off without religions but that not realistically ever happening, so reform is the only option. That doesn't mean that we have to be happy with the slow speed of reform and the stubbornness of a lot of believers in certain matters. Some things just aren't up for debate and have to be accepted.
That is good on a regional level but federally you can see a very alarming trend. Only thinking regionally is not the play. We NEED to fight for this everywhere because this may not be a thing now in SH but it may be a thing in the future. Also Lutheran church is just as likely as other denominations to just say they love but in actuality not loving at all. Just saying they don't want that doesn't mean that that is the truth. There are more than enough lutherans that hate just as much as catholics.
Oh so you feel superior? Any point you make is irrelevant then. A feeling of superiority doesn't let you see things objectively. I also categorize SPD as conservative btw and think Scholz is neither a good chanselor nor a progressive and he should be banned from any political role for this and his involvement in the CumEx scandal.
Conservatives only care about things that either affect them directly or their rule. Naming one good thing that one conservative has done while not mentioning that current conservatives are trying to undermine that very thing is disingenuous at best.
So we are just going to ignore all the pet projects of conservatives, for example Scheuers car toll, that cost the tax payer a huge amount of money while accomplishing nothing? Pet projects are stupid and shouldn't be a thing. I doubt you would find a progressive that disagrees.
And your opinion on that matter is the only correct one? How about we listen to experts that know what they are talking about instead of politicians that are heavily invested in a different outcome.
Well, there is a value in conserving nature and the environment. It's just that somehow conservative values generally contradict conserving things that are in danger, really.
Yeah, my mind has completely separated conservation with conservative. Most folks I know concerned with conservation efforts, are progressive. Most conservatives I know, want to watch the world burn to turn a profit.
Because the feelings of the people who would be affected negatively by progress are as valid as yours.
Okay but if progress means validating people who are made to feel invalid by a lack of progress, we're just in the tolerance paradox with different words.
Yeah, notice how you are now talking like "them".
Like who?
Who would be affected negatively by progress but the extremely wealthy?
I’ve heard tolerance is more of a social contract
If I go hey black guy I’ll tolerate you if you tolerate me We agree Hey gay person I’ll tolerate your differences if you tolerate my differences Hey nazi-
He doesn’t tolerate us so he is not protected by the social contract and then we don’t have to tolerate Mr Nazi
OK you don't have to brag.
I have a couple of conservative friends. We just don't talk about politics or the issues of the day. Surprisingly it's not that hard.
You know, there's so many people I have tried this with. They just won't stop bringing it up even when it is completely unrelated to what we're doing. One of them told me he feels smart because when that comes up I usually walk away to avoid the endless drama and he took that to mean that his position and opinions had so confounded me that leaving was my only way to respond.
Stuff like "yeah I think religion should be enshrined in the Constitution and everyone should have to live by our rules" and "if women don't want to have kids they should keep their legs closed".
Like, even if I thought engaging had any chance of working it's just such braindead regurgitated Fox talking points that I wouldn't engage anyway. Just waiting for these people to get everything they want and suffer for it.
A distressing number of people seem to have inhibition problems.
A further distressing number are narcissists.
We shouldn't be surprised though, that's exactly how they were programmed. The more it became acceptable to pander to our baser instincts, the more profitable it became and the more profit driven concerns did it. The more screen time we had in our upbringing (back when we called it 'tv') the more likely we are to have taken on the programming of exceptionalism and decide that what's good for everyone isn't what's good for us.
I don't necessarily think it was planned that way, but the people who thought that it might be the result were relegated to the fringe.
No no no, don't you see? You need to cutoff all communication with them and get them arrested and ruin their lives bro.
I mean, I'm sorry, but if they believe that abortion is baby murder, black people are predisposed to being criminals, poor people don't deserve to have healthcare, and trans kids should have to live in a miserable hell that makes them want to commit suicide, I'm not going to just "not talk about it" and stay friends with them. If your morals are that fucked, I can't in good conscience call you a friend.
Do you think this is what "conservative" means, like completely honestly?
It is when they vote for people who outwardly say that shit. I don't care what they claim to believe, I only care what their actions say they believe. I don't know a single "conservative" who wouldn't vote for a politician aiming to infringe upon minority rights, and if you're voting for people who want me to be forced to bear a child I don't want, or who want my trans sibling to be banned from receiving life-saving medical care, or who want to deregulate the medical industry so that insurance companies and profit-hospital CEOs can line their pockets at the expense of the working class, or who want to give more money to racist cops who harass my black friends? Then you can talk about how you don't hate trans people all you want but the consequences of your actions say otherwise. You can say abortion doesn't bother you but I don't believe you. You can say "well, I have a black friend" but you're still voting for racists. And I'm sorry, but that makes you a bad person and I won't be friends with a bad person.
Maybe in other countries it's different. But American conservatives only want to "conserve" the status quo of rich white people doing whatever they want and everyone else getting fucked. They can deny it, but until they stop voting for it there's zero reason to believe them.
Have you been living under a rock the past ~8 years? Those bullet points are central to the current GOP's platform. That's what you're voting for when you vote republican.
so I guess that means I'm pro bomb since I voted Biden 2020. damn. ill let the kids know
I think that's what mainstream US conservatism and its adherents think that's what "conservative" means. And honestly, that's pretty much been the undercurrent of US conservatism for over 20 years, they're just now saying the quiet parts out loud.
I think the term's meaning shifts greatly depending on the country. In Finland, a whole lot of conservative politicians voted in favour of less restrictive abortion laws and their conservative party is in favour of same-sex marriage.
You must have better friends than I.
Every conservative I know or knew is walking around with pent-up anger, seemingly ready explode over whatever their handlers in the media have railed them up against that day. I guess that is what keeps them active at the ballot box and prevents them from taking a step back, calming down, thinking and questioning the narrative. Either way, it became pretty much impossible to have any kind of outing with these people present.
It's gotten really tiresome to even look for common ground anymore. Things that were fine just yesterday suddenly make them foam at the mouth. And lately, the persecution complex, too.
Hmm part of it might be that I'm in eastern Canada where there are still 'progessive conservatives' and people don't seem to care so much about politics anyway.
A world away from the USA in terms of media influence.
So, you're saying you are okay with hanging out with people who are completely okay with the oppression and marginalization of minorities. You choose to keep people around who want other people to loose thier rights. You keep people in your life that support book banning and information suppression.
I would not hang out with you.
Not really. You just know really awful conservatives.
The point is to not be tolerant of intolerance...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The primary difference is, I can throw a party, I can have my trans friends gay friends Muslim friends black friends, and Latino friends All in the same room. Then I can leave the room to go take care of something and not have to worry that any one person in the room is going to say "you people".
To be very honest I do have some somewhat conservative friends, They mostly worry that legislation will even the playing field and all their lifelong hard work will be for nothing. Which is still a pretty shitty outlook but I can understand it. They spent 10 years of their life putting our kids through college and all of a sudden colleges free.
"I had to suffer, so everyone else should too." is NOT a valid reason to push back against progress.
Yep. Falls into the "Fuck you I got mine" category.
Every time I hear that I'm like, "So YOU made your car, home, smart phone, EVERYTHING, yourself? Without the help of any other human being? Congratulations on being so self-sufficient, clearly you don't need money, or to see a doctor, or to hire a specialist for anything, you can do it all!"
That's my stance too. If I put a group of people in a room, ideally everyone works together.
Thats not a thing with conservatives. They'll be starting fights with everyone and then blame that they're oppressed.
Depends really heavily on how fundamentalist that Muslim friend is, comrade. If they are Muslim in the same way that Joe Biden is a Christian, then yeah. If they are a Wahhabist, then may Allah help the gays, because the Wahhabist sure as hell won't.
I have 4 Muslim friends, 3 of them would never say a bad word about anyone even in confidence. The forth one would in fact say something about someone, but never to their face. I'm sure there are extremists out there, but by the numbers, 6/10 Christians can't help but preach to people.
I think that it really depends on how much the religion is screwing the government. Muslims from secular lands (for instance Kazakhstan) are usually chill. Muslims from theocracies (for instance Saudi Arabia) often aren't. Christians from secular countries (say, Spain) are usually chill. Christians from the land of fundies (Uganda) are not.
The 6/10 is there because a casual believer is indistinguishable from a nonbeliever in most cases. Muslims are noticeably different, and so you notice them easier, thus giving you better statistics.
I should note that my thoughts on the matter are mostly based on anecdotal evidence and that you shouldn't treat my words as Itmām al-hujjah (heh).
Yeah anecdotal here too. good info though, always good to see different sides of situations from sane people.
Glad I could be useful. Cheers!
You don't choose sexual orientation, race, nationality, body you're born into.
Conservatism is a choice! And it's arguably the wrong one
Ehhh. I understand their logic at this point. It makes sense to them.
That being said, the basis for that logic is rather insane, so take that as you will.
Look, I don't agree with them either, but if you understand them, then you can pre-empt their arguments. This doesn't seem to be something that politicians on "the left" can do.... So they put forward these very sensible and logical motions, and get torn to shreds by the opposition.
I don't have conservative friends because I'm not friends with toxic people. I wish them
wellall deadI don't care what you believe or what direction you lean politically. I won't be friends with jerkoffs and assholes.
That being said, all my friends are left-leaning. 🤷♂️
Why are they leaving the left? Seems kinda sus
Thanks! Auto-carrot kind of screwed me there. I fixed it.
Have a good day stranger.
Auto-carat*
🚗🥕
I don't agree with the fascist lifestyle. I think they should keep it behind closed doors. On another planet. Not this one.
Do you want moon nazis? 'Cuz that's how ypu get moon nazis.
Not even that moldy tbh. just not cracked and deep fried enough for non mondays.
Nope! I know what conservatives want and what they stand for, when I tell them to fuck off it's with pride and volume. Conservative isn't a race, a color, a religion or a sexuality. It's not beyond your control. It's a series of moral decisions made by a fully competent adult who can absolutely be held responsible for what they believe and what they try to do with their power in the world.
Wow, sometimes I invoke Poe's law when people say no one here gets a joke, but like what the hell happens here
It's clearly just joking mirroring. Of course we don't want intolerant people in our discourse.
I have conservative friends. Almost all of them oppose Trump. The point you think you’re making isn’t as clear as you think. The narrative of someone using the “I’m a conservative and I’m being silenced/discriminated” isn’t coming from actual conservatives but rather from MAGA and white nationalist clowns pushing a hateful, un-Christian, not actually classic conservative agenda.
I think it's a joke at the expense of many who deserve it.
Wouldn't a Muslim friend be conservative?
From persnoal experience, not really. Only some are, just like how some Christians are too and not all of them. Humans will always human, no matter the label.
Honestly when I lived in the US, the Conservative xtian thing really surprised me.
Here in the UK xtians tend to be left of center. And the center is historica,ly way more left then the US left.
US Conservative ideals really do not seem even close to the xtian teaching I grew up around.
In the US, evangelical xtians focus a lot more on the old testament. That yields a lot more fire and brimstone with a particular focus on punishment. This is where you find all the stories about god turning people into pillars of salt and committing genocide because he was grumpy. The new testament, i.e. the teachings of Jesus, focuses on kindness and compassion. Focusing on new or old testaments will yield wildly different moral structures.
Isn't the old testament a retelling of Torah? So maybe they should consider Judaism then 🤔
That's because all the conservative Christians either got kicked out, fled, or otherwise ended up in the New World a few centuries ago. They really lean into the prosperity gospel nowadays as well, which is all kinds of problematic.
Seriously flawed view of europeen religiose history. Most of the last 200 years has been way more Conservative then current us.
Even mild progerivism only started to take hold in Europe ixtians n the 1900s.
Love your user name
Maybe I'm right, I am very against forcing morality on non-Christians due to what St Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:12. Although some people get upset at me because they ask me my opinion on what I think is right and wrong and I give them an answer they didn't want 😂
Fellow Christian here: thanks for this verse. It'll be helpful with dealing with the conservatives around me.
God bless you
Not necessarily. Not all Christians are conservative either.
Yyeap that is how it feels to be a conservative today..... Cant say you are a conservative cause people will call you "rasist" "bigot" "sexist" "transphobic" and so on. Just because you think a 9 month old baby should have the same rights as a newborn. Or because you think we should have rules (and we do) behind how people cross the border. Or because you think people should pay money back if they barrow money.
Just some thoughts that will get you banned from social media.
Or because you think people should pay money back if they barrow money.
Except of course PPP loans. Student loans for sure need to be paid back, but the free money the wealthy got from the gubermint is fine.
Not not saying its fine, all Im saying its you should be responsable its all. Seems like its not a popular opinion today....
If people are calling you racist, bigoted, sexist, and transphobic simply because you identify as a conservative, you should probably reevaluate your positions and if you truly identify with conservative values.
Nobody is aborting 9 month old fetuses outside of exceptional medical emergencies, and denying women bodily autonomy is incredibly authoritarian.
Nobody thinks there shouldn't be any rules about crossing borders, even the fringe people that are for open borders. What people disagree with is intentionally drowning people via razorwire as a deterrent, and instead want an easier path to citizenship.
Everyone thinks paying debts is a good thing, but may disagree on what constitutes a faulty, predatory system of debt that ought to be abolished in the first place, like medical debt and school debt.
The thoughts you listed alone will not get you banned from social media (outside of specific communities for specific purposes), what would is how you express those views, which can in fact be sexist, bigoted, or perhaps even racist or transphobic.
Nobody is aborting 9-month-old fetuses at all. Unless that fetus is already dead or dying, 9 months is well past the point of viability.
24 weeks (5 months and some change) is when a fetus could viably survive outside the womb with medical intervention. 9 months is at the point of being fully developed, even if it is a couple weeks premature.
Almost all abortions happen at 10 weeks or less, well before the point of viability. Almost no abortions happen after 24 weeks. Definitely none happening at 9 months.
Yes, absolutely correct, thanks for expanding.
What 9 month old baby has less rights than a newborn? Edit: or vice versa.
I'm gonna charitably guess he means a unborn baby at nine months, but... Does he think those are aborted or some?
You are somehow correct. I do mean nine month unborn baby, its not my opinion if they are killed or not, depends on the state some will allow you to kill your 9 month old baby.
No they fucking don't. Unless there's lethal fetal anomalies or threats to the health of the mother, no one is aborting babies at 9 months. Ffs turn off Fox News already.
I wish you were correct. That is not thw case :( (No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe.)[https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court]
fyi you keep linking to this site but it says the article no longer exists
A quick google search you can find out the states where is legal to kill a 9month old baby
With a quick Google search I can also find out why the earth is in fact a flat triangle. You need to use your critical thinking skills and evaluate sources.
There are states without hard limits, but it is not "legal to kill a 9 month old baby".
Late term abortions are really rare and only performed if there is no chance of survival for the fetus while the mother is at risk.
If these horrible conditions are met, doctors will find out well before the 9th month, often before the 3rd trimester.
Sounds good. Sounds like flat earth it is.... Sorry we could not have a usuful conversation.
Sorry but that's not true... either emergency c section at around 7 months onwards or regular delivery etc. No such thing as an abortion as far as Im aware. Is this what you think a "late term abortion" is?
No, this is what I mean: [ Viability: 14 states ban abortions after the fetus is considered viable. Some laws that don't specify a limit say it's up to the abortion provider's "judgment" to determine whether a fetus is viable. Third trimester: Virginia is the only state that prohibits abortions in the pregnancy's third trimester, which starts at around 25 weeks, per Guttmacher. It's also the lone southern state that hasn't banned or restricted abortion since the end of Roe.
No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe.](https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court)
Sure, but you have the logic backwards. Viability isnt used so that people can get an abortion even though the baby can survive, its so the physician can make the judgement to deliver a baby that can survive instead of attempting an abortion - when the mothers life is in danger.
There is no magic cut off date, where all babies are ready to deliver or will die. So basically the math goes like this: physician determines the mother will die if the baby does not come out. If they determine the baby is viable --> the baby comes out and is alive via medical procedure (not abortion). If they determine that the baby is not viable --> the baby comes out and cannot survive via medical procedure (abortion). Fyi, in case you think oh well, keep the baby in: the mom dies, the baby is not viable to survive and dies too. Thats it. No one is aborting babies that could be birthed and survive.
“Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability – be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor – as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.” Colautti v. Franklin (1979)
This is a different situation than early pregnancy abortions. Different areas of focus, rights, benefits, ethics etc. Dont treat both rights as requiring the same logic to support.
It seems to me, at least, no matter what someones position is on early term terminations, late term is a slam dunk obvious answer. Leave the decision to the parents and their physicians, not lawyers and legislators.
I wish you were correct. But that is not the case. "No limit: Six states and Washington, D.C., do not impose any term restrictions. That has not changed since the overturning of Roe." No matter what the case is you dint have restictions.
Qe have to understand that the reason we have some laws is to protect the most inosent, specially those who cant defend themselfs. We do this with the older, handicaped and kids. Kids are not able to drink, why? Why cant they smoke? They are not mature enough to make desitions for themselves, so we take that responsability upon their parents.
So, should laws be put to protect the unborn babies? Is their life worth more or less then yours? Why can you kill the baby before 9 months but not after? What is different? "If the baby continues to develop it will kill the mother so lets kill the baby so the mother can live" is the argument before 9 months but never after 9 months.
Wow, you just completely ignored what he said, and quoted the same short sentence you quoted before as if it settles the issue.
I hope you're trolling, in which case: A+ effort, well done
Depends on the state, some mothers are able to kill their 9 month baby (does notmatter what the father opinion is)
Patently false. Nobody is aborting 9 month old unborn babies unless there's an immediate medical danger.
There is no restriction on some states. No matter if there are medical danger or not :( Really sad to be honest https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court
Have you ever considered that, at that late in the term, most of those mothers wanted their babies but had to abort to survive or because the fetus was already either dead or may as well have been? You talk like they’re just wantonly killing babies (just to spite men for some reason) because, idk, this is the future liberals want, drink blood, hail gay satan, whatever
If the babie is death then its not an abortion. If the baby dies by natural reasons its not an abortion.
Drink blood? Hail gay? What are you talking about
Except that plenty of surgical abortions happen because the baby is already dead in the mother's uterus though.
Being dead doesn't magically teleport it away and it needs to be taken out for the mother to survive.
Which is, medically speaking, the same procedure as a surgical abortion.
From wikipidia: Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy
If the baby is dead the pregnancy has finished already.
The states that ban surgical abortions don't care about that and ban the procedures in talking about.
Not that you'd give a shit anyway.
Gdefinitions matter, and yes states that have banned abortion even have exceptions. Defining what abortion is is the main point. Cant put something in to law if ita not define.
But what does it matter if some people would argue that "woman" does not have a meaning.
Do you know how they abort a 9 month old baby? A 6 month old, even?
They induce delivery or do a c section. You can't just vacuum it out or poison it or something - it's several pounds of flesh and bone, and (as always) the biggest issue is the skull. It's gotta come out, or the mother will die... Babies can die at any moment, and it will decompose. All that bacteria gets into the blood, and that bacteria poisons the blood... Sepsis is a death sentence - whether it's an organ or a fetus, it has to come out or your chances aren't good.
So you have to get the skull out - it's the widest part. So either induced delivery (the quicker, easier option), or it's surgery.
A C section is something that is extremely common and relatively safe - there's not really a third option unless the mother is likely to die from that or induced birth.
There's a whole approval process for non-standard procedures (or you'd lose your license and be begging for malpractice to drop you), and you'd need a specialist, probably a pediatric surgeon who does en-utero surgery. They'd also have to go through review and defend why it was medically necessary - they'd be risking their license and being dropped by malpractice insurance if they didn't have a very good argument.
It would be grueling too - it would be a long, physically intensive surgery for everyone involved. Extremely expensive too...
So you're doing an induced birth or a c section. It's also likely going to be automatically classified as a risky birth, because it's premature, so you'll be getting a more experienced surgeon and experienced nurses who have specialized in pre-mature births (possibly a special team, depending on the size of the hospital... But it'll be the most experienced people available).
These are going to be the people who devoted their life to giving babies every chance possible. I know several well... Let me share a couple stories I've heard.
An older couple was almost 9 months into the pregnancy, and very much wanted the child, especially knowing it was probably their last chance. It was an at risk pregnancy so they were watching closely, but seemed to be going along pretty well... They'd picked out a name and decorated the nursery, it could come any day now. Then suddenly, the woman felt pain, and they rushed in... The baby had died without warning. They were crushed, but they had to induce delivery. The nurse was delivering the corpse, and as the head came through it fell off.
The nurse blocked their view as she delivered the body, and took it over to the washing station. In cases like this, she'd clean and dress it, take a footprint and picture to give them something to keep, and let them hold their child once to give them a chance to say goodbye. So she did all that, bundled it in a blanket and covered the neck with a ribbon, and gave them that chance without them ever realizing.
In another case, a younger mother's health was going downhill midway through the pregnancy and she came in - the baby had died inside her some time ago, and she didn't realize. She was in bad shape because of sepsis, so immediately they induced delivery. It had rotted... The arms had already fallen off, and she delivered it in decomposing pieces. The nurse did a footprint, but didn't show the body.
But mostly, she delivered pre-mature births - babies that may or may not make it if she did everything she could. Even if it wasn't breathing or the heart wasn't beating, she put it on a ventilator and do infant CPR. Over the years she even learned to do weird things as a last ditch effort, like pricking the baby's foot with a needle or holding them at a certain angle... Giving dying babies every chance is what she's spent her life doing.
I did also ask about what they do in that situation, with a super late term abortion - they'd deliver the baby, and as soon as it was stable she'd whisk it away to the NICU. They then never mentioned it to the mother unless she directly asked... Apparently the mother usually doesn't, and so if it survives it goes up for whatever processes for adoption. If there's any kernel of truth in these stories, women might be leaving the hospital thinking their child is dead.
So I mentioned non-standard procedures risking everything - so there's a clear line here too. Part of the modern Hippocratic oath is to minimize harm... They can prioritize the mother's autonomy or health over the baby, but the baby has to come out. Maybe there's some crazy situation where killing the baby would improve the mothers chances, but without a pressing reason, the baby is going to get any chance they can give it.
But forget the laws. There's no way in hell they're killing babies just because the mother told them to... I've heard them talk shit about weird or stupid parents, but the only complaint I've ever heard about the babies is "it was really troublesome, it kept trying to die every time I looked away"
I would agree that some people have become hyper-sensitized towards any statement that might be interpreted as "racist", "sexist" or "transphobic", no thanks to a definite rise of those sentiments, mainly amongst conservatives. But I firmly believe this "they call anyone conservative a nazi/a racist/a transphobe/a xenophobe" claim is a persecution complex installed onto conservatives by the media to disarm the accusations and instead turn them into anger against the "other side."
If this is about the USA, abortion used to be legal up to 12 weeks after conception, 9 months would be crazy. Also, there is no open border, nor does the current government want that (they merely insist on proper procedure, aka rules, rather than letting people drown). Republicans will likely continue to reject border deals in order to keep the topic cooking until election day and to aid America's enemies in Russia.
I agree with a lot of your opinions here, I just don't understand what makes these examples intrinsically conservative.
I'm a liberal, but I don't believe in the breakdown of structure. A lot of those rules are in place for a reason - I'd argue the difference lies more in response.
...you were banned from a social media site for saying someone should pay back a debt?Which one, I'll stay as far away as possible, that's crazy fr 😯
I'm assuming he's referring to student loan forgiveness. I could see him getting banned from certain communities for saying he's against it.
Yeap that is correct. Creating irresponsable individuals (in my opinion you should be responsable for your acctions)
I think two things make up the core of the student loan problem.
Kids in high school are surrounded by rhetoric from every adult they might trust near-constantly insinuating that if you don't go to college you'll never make anything of yourself (this has been better recently, with more and more high school graduates being made abundantly aware of non-college options available to them)
Student loans are designed to spiral into lifelong debt. This one is a bit more anecdotal for me but a good few of my high school friends have paid back well beyond the initial sum of their student loans, yet their remaining balance is greater than they started.
Now I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but those who frame the issue as purely one of personal responsibility (i.e. "you took out a loan pay it back") are at best being unhelpfully reductive and at worst gaslighting.
Set aside, just for a moment, the abstract moral aspect of this position, and consider the purely utilitarian side. If such a huge portion of an entire generation's earnings are being funneled up to banks that talked them into a maybe-not-so-necessary college education when they were 17, they're not exactly enabled to spend money in local commerce. Money spent in local commerce is pretty good if you want an economy to thrive, and if you ask me, student debt forgiveness would substantially contribute to that. If you disagree then you disagree, but framing that disagreement as a moral superiority is immature.
A 3rd thing you forgot to mention People will take a loan and study a carriers that dont pay enough for them to be able to pay back. Meaning people will not study the market when they ask for a loan. If you need such a big loan you better be sure that you are going to be anle to pay it back. How much money do people make right out if collage from the profession Im intented to study? Not enough? Then its nit a good invesment of time and money....
From a non-US standpoint I'd have to ask you why university costs money to attend in the first place. Shouldn't you instead give students money to cover living expenses etc. so that they can focus on their studies? So that everyone who might be able to graduate gets a go at it, regardless of their socio-economic background?
Universal education isn't exactly a new, radical position, Luther was advocating for a broad education for everyone back in the 1500s.
I wish nobidy had to work and everything was "free", but as they say everybody has to " eat". Profesors, personal, etc... Not to take in to account the equipment needed to run the clases (labs etc...).
Nothing is "free"
Indeed not. Streets, for example, need building and maintenance... yet they are free to use. Why would you handle education any differently?
Why stop at education? Why not housing, or food, or cars, or vacation? Why work at all?
Why work? To fulfil your ambitions. To give to your fellow human beings.
It's really a funny thing: If you look at polls surrounding providing a universal basic income you see an overwhelming majority answer "I'd work about the same amount, maybe a bit less but not much" while the same majority also says "Most people would park themselves in front of the TV with a beer". The general attitude is "everyone is a lazy bum but me", see what capitalist realism has done to us. One of the worst innovations ever, conservatives really should rail against it given that it's new and harmful.
More into details: Education, housing, food, yes. Access to information and entertainment (internet), and healthcare. Cars, no, we should have proper public transport, vacation, depends: Do you want to spend money or visit balconia?
Hahahh so work so you feel good about yourself? Oh God....
I pity you.
Housing, food, and transportation should indeed be decommodified. Vacation is a luxury, and doesn't need to be free at point of service.
People work because they still need to. Do you get paid to clean your room? Even then, you'd still get paid, but certain things should not be extorted by profit.
Are you anti soup kitchen too lol
wait you probably hate the unhoused too
Yeah but from the perspective of a government paying for your citizens education reduces crime, increases revenue and helps your country stay on top from a technology point of view. It's a pretty safe investment that pays for itself. I graduated 5 years ago, university and college isnt free where i am but is subsidized (and also access to low interest gov't loans) I have already paid in taxes more than my education cost the government. If I work for another 20yrs that's easily a 4x on the initial investment.
Define conservative. I don't count bigotry.
Isn't Islam technically Conservative? I'm confused
Religion should be opposed via education, culture, and general science, not via the state. Religion is conservative, but there are good religious people.
All religions are technically conservative. Individuals have individual relationships with their religions though.
If you want to be friends then why aren't you friendly?
Over 1100 upvotes and 20 down votes has me cracking up.
There's nothing a conservative hates more than being judged by who they are as people. They think that tolerance means being a complete moral vacuum and accepting any sort of malevolence and violence. This is because they see people being tolerant of PoC, queer people and non-Christians and they also see membership in those categories as moral failings.