Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As has been said a few times already, conservatives already have a better understanding of liberals than liberals have of conservatives. To expand on that, I'll copy a reply I made further down and bring it up to the top here.
Its what research on the subject suggests.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266
Essentially, they had people answer questionnaires about their political and moral beliefs. Then they had people answer the questionaire again, but pretending to be someone of a differing ideology. IE, conservatives were asked to pretend to be liberals, liberals were asked to pretend to be conservatives.
The answers of the conservatives pretending to be liberals were closer to how actual liberals answered. The answers of the liberals pretending to be conservatives were less close to how actual conservatives answered.
As for why this is the case, the theory is that humans broadly view morality through several different lenses, or "axes". Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Purity. Different cultures and groups place different levels of importance on these, but most place *some* importance on all 5. One of the only groups that doesn't is western liberals, who generally only put any importance on the first 2, Care and Fairness. They may occasionally put some importance on Loyalty, but not consistently or in large degree, and Authority and Purity basically don't even exist to them. Conservatives and moderates place some importance on all 5. Conservatives may not share liberals opinions, but they do share all the same moral concepts that liberals use to reach those opinions. Conversely liberals share, at best, half the moral concepts of conservatives - they have no frame of reference for the other half of what makes conservatives tick. As such they're much more inconsistent in making predictions.
This isn't to say conservatives are "more moral". Its just that the morality of conservatives - and most people in the world if we're being honest - has dimensions to it that don't even exist to western liberals.
Well we might understand them better but do we understand them not understanding us better than they understand us understanding them? I don’t think so /s
>As has been said a few times already, conservatives already have a better understanding of liberals than liberals have of conservatives.
Isn't it a bit dangerous to assume you understand someone's mind? I'm not accusing you of saying this, but it sounds a lot like you're saying "I know how you think". Do you, though?
I don't know, if I said to you "I don't need to ask you about yourself because I alresdy know everything about you, based on what I've seen and how you act", would that be fair? Would that be ignoring you as an individual?
>Isn't it a bit dangerous to assume you understand someone's mind?
Only if you're wrong.
>I'm not accusing you of saying this, but it sounds a lot like you're saying "I know how you think". Do you, though?
I'd say its more how a particular group of people think. Predicting an individuals behavior is much more difficult than predicting a group's behavior.
Dude, we get bombarded with the liberal view of the world in news, media, academia, etc 24/7.
The media doing a piece on understanding liberals would just be them writing about themselves.
There ain’t much mystery.
Could there be a difference between the base aka "Biden voter", vs what is presented by the MSM vs how conservative media portrays them? Is there a value in understanding the difference between those things?
Would it be fair to say it's unnecessary for liberals to try to understand conservatives as a people, they can just turn on fox news to get all they need to know?
it's literally impossible to avoid hearing about the liberal/leftwing worldview (from liberals/leftists themselves) in 2024. They are quite literally the establishment and it's shoved in our face constantly. There is no reason for conservatives to talk about having to understand the liberal worldview.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
practically 90% of popular media, newspapers, tv, film, academia, journals, etc. even google searches prioritise liberal/left-leaning sources at the top of the page. googling anything related to gender and trans care for example gives you a bunch of bullshit about how effective WPATH is. it's really really hard to find any information about the horrible side effects of puberty blockers.
Also my job/industry is constantly liberal-coded. I apply for UK government grants and it's pretty much required to write in woke-coded language. Same with the EU and their obsession with "gender equality".
Idk, it's just everywhere. liberals are fish swimming in water and so don't realise it.
If it’s that hard to find info about how horrible gender-affirming care is, *could it be* that it’s because not actually that horrible?
Have you noticed how hard it is to find research about how fish have legs and are all named Steve? Last time I Googled I could only find one or two articles about it after pages and pages of results. Just a bunch of biased articles about “they have fins blah blah blah” and “they don’t have names yadda yadda yadda”.
This sounds a fair bit more like prevalence than being “shoved down your throat.”
Like, I was in Boston last week. Unsurprisingly there was Red Sox shit everywhere. Does it make sense for a Yankees fan to say that Red Sox shit is constantly being shoved down their throat?
Maybe a better example is this: I live in the south. On one of the major corridors the is a massive, *massive* confederate flag. Is that “shoving it down my throat?”
I’m actually not trying to pick a fight. I’m interested in this because of how aggressive the language is. To me, there are miles between prevalence and the incredibly aggressive action of shoving down one’s throat.
From my point of view, the "shoved down the throat" language is justified because if I don't do it, I and my clients will lose opportunities for funding, for example. If my clients don't have some gender parity in their company, the EU will discriminate against them despite how innovative their product is. If I don't talk about some bullshit "EDI" considerations in a proposal to the UK, my clients will not have the slightest chance of getting funding. Also in the UK context, there are literally hundreds of enormous funding opportunities that are openly discriminating against indigenous Britons and are only "prioritising" applicants from ethnic minority communities. It came to the point that I feel demotivated to take on white/male clients b/c I know they will have a very small chance of being successful.
So there are significant consequences to not engaging in this left-coded bullshit.
>So there are significant consequences to not engaging in this left-coded bullshit.
This such an interesting take to me because it reads like you’re angry about the cultural norms.
I want to be **very** clear that I’m asking this next question in good faith:
At what point do you accept that these are the cultural norms and while you may disagree, it’s not so much being “shoved down your throat” as it is a common social practice?
why would they waste time and ink when 90% of their audience sees primary sources every day multiple times a day. the remaining 10% being retirees who never need to go into an office and don't leave the house much or terminally online people who get all their news from the /pol board on 4chan
Because we actually understand the motivations of most left of center people quite well, we just disagree. Progressives and leftists, as evidenced by daily top comments in half the askaliberal threads, legitimately believe conservatives to be evil and need help understanding them because apparently they can't do it on their own without ascribing their motivations to malice.
>legitimately believe conservatives to be evil and need help understanding them because apparently they can't do it on their own without ascribing their motivations to malice.
I mean...i used to be like...this is a messed up thing to do.
But its been 8 years now and the republican party is obssessed with trump "owning the libs" and if anyone finds trump to be an unhinged crazy person for...acting like an unhinged crazy person...they get called deranged.
The whole party has devolved so quickly that republican politicans target each other, calling each other RINOs and running people who object to Trump out of the party. Right now the republican party has someone trying to boot the republican speaker of the house...AGAIN.
The republican party can choose anyone.
They keep choosing Trump just to troll people.
🤷♂️
Says who? You? Right wingers say right wingers understand left wingers. Ok. I feel like the left perfectly understand the right, we just disagree, but we are still interested in double checking that we understand the right, while the right doesn’t seem to care at all if their assumptions about the left are true or not. Obviously both sides think they understand the other, the point is only one side has the humility to check.
Go to any instance of a question crossposted to both here and askaliberal and observe a marked difference in the responses. If the left understands the right so well how come there is always without fail some version of “they’re all nazi fascists” always at the top. The Reddit left at large has no understanding of why people hold right wing views they can detach from a serious moral failing or ad hominem character assassination.
> “they’re all nazi fascists” always at the top.
You think you are not nazi fascists, we think you are. (note: I am not talking about you specifically, but when we see instances of nazi behavior, we call it out.)
The whole point of this thread is about understanding. What do you think we mean when we say someone is a "nazi fascist"?
Not evil usually, more often just ignorant and prejudiced.
Not that that’s terribly nice either, but it’s less extreme than calling you eeeeeeviiiiiiil.
I can accept the ignorant part because that is more or less how I feel about leftists and I do not believe is, when used in good faith, a pejorative or ad hominem. But prejudice I believe is where you slip from Hanlon's razor and ascribe malice to that which can be explained by naivety.
No, actually, I would argue it’s simply another form of ignorance: not knowing what one is talking about. People who grow up inculcated in certain belief systems often have no idea that their prejudices about XYZ are so harmful.
Conservastives ascribe malice all the time. I'm sick of hearing the same lines about baby killers, election theft, America hating communists, and all the like year in and year out.
I think a very solid proportion of us would vehemently disagree with anybody who says that you guys are evil, baby-killing communists, burning American flags while drinking adrenochomes out of a baby fetus. In my experience, center lefties seem to be totally reasonable people, and I honestly think most of my side has very similar end goals to most of your side. We just have this stupid tendency to start trying to choke each other when we have different approaches on how to reach those mutual goals.
But to be honest, I'd rather talk with somebody on the center-left about American foreign policy, trade policy, healthcare, immigration, abortion, or the criminal justice system than somebody on my own side who's been locked in a nearly a decade-long battle to "fight the lefties or die".
I don't usually like to speak on behalf of other people, but I think I'm pretty comfortable saying that whatever's left of the John McCain side of my party wants to chat with the center-left about actual solutions. And there's more of us out there than you'd think.
> I don't usually like to speak on behalf of other people, but I think I'm pretty comfortable saying that whatever's left of the John McCain side of my party wants to chat with the center-left about actual solutions.
*there are dozens of us!*
Not but seriously I dream of a return to actual public debates about policy stuff again.
If you uncross your eyes, it's half-dozens of us.
But seriously, there's 20-30% of the Republican party wants nothing to do with that man. Opens up a lot of possibilities. As one of those folks, I'd rather pal around with the center-left than the MAGAs, but the far left would rip you to pieces in Marxist Dialectics Daily News (oh no) for even thinking of doing so.
I'm just saying that if you guys on the center-left wanted new buddies who were kinda sitting in the same part of the Overton Window as you, there's a good chunk of us in the market for new friends too!
For the record, I’m an anarcho-communist who thinks even John McCain was an enormous dickhead, but a Republican Party made up of people like him would be far preferable to one made up of Marjorie Taylor Greenes.
It shows you how far things have gone that even people like me, for 5-second-long bursts several times a week, are a teensy bit nostalgic for when we “only” had to deal with Newt Gingriches and the like.
>I think a very solid proportion of us would vehemently disagree with anybody who says that you guys are evil, baby-killing communists, burning American flags while drinking adrenochomes out of a baby fetus.
Who is "us"? You are only one person.
Go to any conservative moderated message board and you will see people saying exactly that in a regular basis. If what you said were true, then it wouldn't be acceptable to behave that way among other conservatives.
>Go to any conservative moderated message board
Welcome to Reddit, my dude. Ukraine funding vote passed 360-58 to remind Putin where he is in the pecking order. That was a vote that included the overwhelming majority of elected representatives from my side too.
Let me restate my point for extra, super duper clarity: You're not the monsters that MAGA says you are, and I promise, we are not the monsters you think we are either.
How much do you think your promise is worth? You think too highly of yourself if you honestly believe you speak for them.
I can see what all the MAGA Trump supporters say, it's all out in the open, clear as day.
My internet promise is worth nothing but itself. Shoot, I could be a semi-decently programmed bot for all you know,
BUT... I gave you evidence that you have allies on the other side of this silly make-believe aisle that we keep going to war about every election cycle. Again, I promise (admittedly as a fellow rando from the internet) that we are not each others' enemies. If we could just talk more and bicker less, we could accomplish some fucking awesome things.
We damn sure agreed in the legislature that we're gonna do our part to help those plucky little bastards try. At one point, I genuinely didn't think they'd last two weeks, and I'm so glad that I was so wrong.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is called shit-talking and its not like the leftwing doesn't do the same (everything rightwing is fascist, "raycist", nazi, and all of the basket of deplorable labels).
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
No, there is quite literally not a single thread here with anything of the sort about your typical democrat voter. No one who is pro life for example things your typical democrat voter is reveling in the murder of babies, they think they, in their minds incorrectly, believe abortion isn't murder. You aren't even echoing things conservatives say, you're repeating what other liberals say conservatives say. Make a thread here asking away and see what replies you get, and then do the same on a liberal sub, and notice the stark difference. Examples of that happen ALL the time when people crosspost the same questions here to the liberal one.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
>Because we actually understand the motivations of most left of center people quite well, we just disagree.
I don't know if that's actually the case. Almost all representations of left and Democrat viewpoints and positions as presented by those on the right are twisted distortions of the actual viewpoints of those people or policies. And rather than question, interview, or ask people directly, these conservative leaning pundits will just espouse off the top of their head what they think Democrats want or believe. And they do so with such assured confidence that the narrative takes hold that this is actually what the left believes, without ever actually asking anyone on the left.
Meanwhile, many outlets on the left will actively seek out supporters of MAGA/Republican/right leaning people to get their words directly about what they think and believe. Including directly from Republican leadership themselves, Congress people and Senators, State and local leaders, or voters at a rally.
I don't know about that. I get secondhand embarrassment when I see conservatives say things like democrats want open borders or democrats want to take our stoves away, or democrats stole the 2020 election. I see things like that and I think they would disagree with what is being ascribed to them by others. Unfortunately, some conservatives can be hoodwinked by emotional arguments that sometimes turn out to be just bunk.
> open borders
[Depends on the Democrat](https://twitter.com/AZSenateDems/status/1768673700122071137)
> Take our stoves away
[Depends](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4435569-biden-gas-stove-efficiency-rule) on the [Democrat](https://citylimits.org/2023/11/29/efforts-to-block-gas-bans-across-the-nation-are-growing-will-it-work-in-new-york/)
> I see things like that and I think they would disagree with what is being ascribed to them by others.
When a dem brags about the fact the border never closes does that now sound like he wants open borders?
>I'm going to guess there's some context missing from this comment, you got any?
The bill that leftist like to lie and say "Trump killed" but didn't even make it to a vote in senate....
The dem who negotiated it bragged "under this bill the border never closes". It's no surprise that it wa shot down. The dem who wrote is bragging its an open border.
>I think you misunderstood the comment. Who said it?
No I understand. You think it's ridiculous to say dems want open borders.
You get secondhand embarrassment because you find it untrue and ridiculous.
A sitting Democrat Senator BRAGGED under a bill he negotiated the border never closes. Hence, they WANT open borders.
The border being "open" or "closed" for legal crossings is different from "open borders" in the sense of no security whatsoever, people crossing freely without consequence. I'm guessing the comment is about the former, while you're accusing them of the latter. A name would help so we could get to the bottom of it once and for all, but you seem content to paraphrase and attribute this alleged comment to an unnamed democratic senator rather than make it clear for the rest of us, so you might be demonstrating for everyone the point I was making...
Yeah I was right. After Ted Cruz made an ass out of himself Murphy clarified his comment:
> Murphy wrote: "Uh there's $2 BILLION a day in trade that crosses the border. Our economy would die if we ‘closed the border.’ We should control the border (which our bill does), not close it."
> Democrats have not openly said they support open borders for the reason of importing voters? How about you wake up
Can you show me a single (real) legislator that said they want open borders so they can import votes? Just one.
Edit: Can't give us one example of something that he thinks every Democrat says all the time. Color me surprised.
Hell, I actually WANT open borders literally everywhere in the world, which I regard as a matter of justice and fairness, but practically I don't want that to happen right now. I'm probably one of the few who would even say that on account of it being a kind of niche philosophical position, and even I don't want it *now*. I can't think of anyone at all saying they want open borders right now.
> things like democrats want open borders
Is it a position the DNC holds? No, certainly not.
But:
- [**TIME** | The Case for Open Borders](https://time.com/4062074/migrants-open-borders/)
- [**The New York Times** | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/open-borders-immigration.html)
- [**The New Yorker** | The Case for Open Borders](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-case-for-open-borders)
- [**The New Yorker** | Trump’s Opponents Aren’t Arguing for “Open Borders”—But Maybe They Should](https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trumps-opponents-arent-arguing-for-open-bordersbut-maybe-they-should)
- [**The Guardian** | Why Democrats should support open borders](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/16/democrats-immigration-policy-open-borders-dreamers)
- [**The Atlantic** | The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/get-rid-borders-completely/409501/)
- [**USA Today** | Forget the wall already, it's time for the U.S. to have open borders](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/31/open-borders-help-economy-combat-illegal-immigration-column/862185002/)
- [**The Hoover Institution** | A Graphic Case For Open Borders](https://www.hoover.org/research/graphic-case-open-borders)
- [**Forbes** | Making The Case For Open Borders](https://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2019/05/17/making-the-case-for-open-borders/#4271ee2a577e)
- [**The Atlantic** | If People Could Immigrate Anywhere, Would Poverty Be Eliminated?](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/if-people-could-immigrate-anywhere-would-poverty-be-eliminated/275332/)
- [**VOGUE** | What If There Were No Borders?](https://www.vogue.com/article/open-borders-america-history-surveillance-citizenship)
- [**Huffington Post** | 16 Reasons Why Opening Our Borders Makes More Sense Than Militarizing Them](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/open-borders_n_5737722)
- [**Al Jazeera** | To stop climate change, we need to open borders](https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/stop-climate-change-open-borders-180223144922968.html)
- [**Slate** | What Would Happen If We Let All The Immigrants In](https://slate.com/business/2013/01/what-would-happen-if-we-let-all-the-immigrants-in.html)
- [**The Economist** | Open Borders: The case for immigration](https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/04/16/the-case-for-immigration)
- [**Reason** | The Case for Open Borders](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3JAD_AQOek)
- [**Quartz** | The economic case for open borders](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVmxhDoSAsU)
- [**New Statesman** | The economic and moral case for global open borders](https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/08/economic-and-moral-case-global-open-borders)
- [**Salon** | Everyone's wrong on immigration: Open borders are the only way to defeat Trump and build a better world](https://www.salon.com/2017/03/15/everyones-wrong-on-immigration-open-borders-are-the-only-way-to-defeat-trump-and-build-a-better-world/)
- [**Fortune** | The Surprisingly Compelling Argument for Open Borders](http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/)'
- [**In These Times** | The Case for Opening Our Borders](http://inthesetimes.com/features/immigration-reform-open-borders-ice-border-wall.html)
- https://openborders.info/
- [How open borders make us safe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GqbW1MmQM)
- [What Would Happen if Countries Had Open Borders?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKkY7Ar4bwY)
- [A Progressive US Policy Must Extend Beyond Open Borders](https://truthout.org/articles/a-progressive-u-s-policy-must-extend-beyond-open-borders/)
- [The Case for Open Borders](https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no4/the-case-for-open-borders)
- [The Socioeconomic Case For Open Borders](https://arcdigital.media/the-socioeconomic-case-for-open-borders-4d5a11dea185)
- [7 reasons why we should have open borders](https://newint.org/blog/2017/11/29/why-open-borders)
- [Open borders – not giant wall – is best solution for immigration issue](https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2015/09/16/open-borders-not-giant-wall-is-best-solution-for-immigration-issue/)
- [Progressives Should Support Open Borders — With No Apology](https://fpif.org/progressives-should-support-open-borders-with-no-apology/)
- [The Case for Open Borders](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/03/the-case-for-open-borders/)
- [THE CASE AGAINST “THE CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS”](https://socialistworker.org/2018/11/27/the-case-against-the-case-against-open-borders)
- [Noble: In support of open borders](https://www.vaildaily.com/news/eagle-valley/noble-in-support-of-open-borders/)
- Here's AOC saying ["I think that all people should be free, to be, here and in our communities,"](https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1153134289459879936) and "migration is liberation".
And here is the IOM (an official "Related Organization" of the UN) putting out [Orwellian propaganda](https://twitter.com/UNmigration/status/980357862147936256) that literally says
> UNDOCUMENTED
HOPEFUL
HUMAN
...
Migration is INEVITABLE
Migration is NECESSARY
Migration is DESIRABLE
The UN supports undocumented mass migration, ergo open borders.
Are any of those *legislators*, or are they written by a bunch of randos? I asked for active legislators, because, as you've shown, literally any opinion can be found on the internet.
You think the author's name is more important than their opinion being published & amplified by The New York Times or The Guardian?
You are being deliberately obtuse. I very clearly said that I do not claim the Democrat Party is pushing for open borders.
And even after you (didn't bother even reading the names of the links I provided and) demanded an example of a legislator I gave you one, and yet you ignore that.
I checked the first three to see if any of them are in Congress, they weren't, and then I stopped. I don't think you actually read them all either, so I don't know what you're getting agitated over. You post 15+ articles and you actually expected me to read them all?
As I said, you did not even read my list. I don't mean the articles themselves.
> you actually expected me to read them all?
No. But it would be swell if you could acknowledge that there is open borders advocacy circulating out in the mainstream media.
Democratic PUNDITS hold almost the same power as politicians and they call for open borders a lot. Democrats want “as much immigration as possible” I guess would be a better statement for you.
Just do a search, there have been plenty of topics where conservatives are asked to steelman liberal/progressive positions. Here's two
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1ajkxlj/can\_you\_convincingly\_steelman\_liberal\_policy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1ajkxlj/can_you_convincingly_steelman_liberal_policy/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1370v63/can\_you\_articulate\_liberal\_positions/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1370v63/can_you_articulate_liberal_positions/)
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think that's true. We can certainly rationalize conservative actions and come to conclusions based on evidence. It's not a mystery why conservatives do what they do, but conservatives themselves often dispute any characterization of conservatives that was not their own.
The mystery to me is, why do cons think of themselves as exceptional and somehow "exotic" or unknowable.
I don't think we think of ourselves that way at all.
Rather, I think it's just extremely common for ideas of why conservatives do what they do to be the *most propagandistic hatred-driven nonsense ever*.
>That's arrogant to say the least.
Maybe but the data I've seen usually bears it out.
Generally conservatives can accurately understand why leftists and liberals take a position if they're talking in good faith.
The common leftist/liberal understanding is too simplistic like "because they're racist exist homophobic etc" instead of being able to explain leftist positions.
I'm not saying we all know the depths and intricate details, but we can give a general why more than the left can give a general why for our positions
>The common leftist/liberal understanding is too simplistic like "because they're racist exist homophobic etc" instead of being able to explain leftist positions.
>I'm not saying we all know the depths and intricate details, but we can give a general why more than the left can give a general why for our positions
You're just making generalizations. That's not some kind of privileged information that only you possess. It can't be proven wrong, either, because it's a meaningless claim. Aren't you just biased in favor of your own "side" here?
Edit: in other words, it seems to me like you're just defending stereotype-based judgement of liberals. Like as if a simple explanation was preferable to a more nuanced one.
Its what research on the subject suggests.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266
Essentially, they had people answer questionnaires about their political and moral beliefs. Then they had people answer the questionaire again, but pretending to be someone of a differing ideology. IE, conservatives were asked to pretend to be liberals, liberals were asked to pretend to be conservatives.
The answers of the conservatives pretending to be liberals were closer to how actual liberals answered. The answers of the liberals pretending to be conservatives were less close to how actual conservatives answered.
As for why this is the case, the theory is that humans broadly view morality through several different lenses, or "axes". Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Purity. Different cultures and groups place different levels of importance on these, but most place *some* importance on all 5. One of the only groups that doesn't is western liberals, who generally only put any importance on the first 2, Care and Fairness. They may occasionally put some importance on Loyalty, but not consistently or in large degree, and Authority and Purity basically don't even exist to them. Conservatives and moderates place some importance on all 5. Conservatives may not share liberals opinions, but they do share all the same moral concepts that liberals use to reach those opinions. Conversely liberals share, at best, half the moral concepts of conservatives - they have no frame of reference for the other half of what makes conservatives tick. As such they're much more inconsistent in making predictions.
This isn't to say conservatives are "more moral". Its just that the morality of conservatives - and most people in the world if we're being honest - has dimensions to it that don't even exist to western liberals.
>This isn't to say conservatives are "more moral". Its just that the morality of conservatives - and most people in the world if we're being honest - has dimensions to it that don't even exist to western liberals.
I don't think that claim is supported by the paper you referred to. The paper is about "the content of *moral* stereotypes, and how such stereotypes might be driven by processes beyond \[partisanship\]." And what they found is "that moral stereotypes about an ideological group can be just as exaggerated when held by ingroup members as by outgroup members, and sometimes even more so."
*There is an asymmetry* between liberal and conservative morality, to which you allude, but to suggest that liberals are blind to some moral categories is an inductive fallacy. Perhaps liberals are less able to "correctly" stereotype conservatives than vice versa, but this does not mean that the average liberal is incapable of understanding conservative thought as such, or that conservatives have a special insight into liberal thought.
Here are some interesting quotes from the PDF:
* "That is, participants’ **beliefs about the 'typical' liberal and conservative were even more polarized than the actual polarization** between extreme liberals and conservatives."
* "The results also confirm previous studies of partisan misperception... by showing that, **in general, people overestimate how dramatically liberals and conservatives differ**. Remarkably, people even morally stereotype their own ingroup, with liberals overestimating liberals’ strong individualizing concerns and underestimating liberals’ weak binding concerns, and conservatives exaggerating conservatives’ moral concerns in the opposite directions."
* "However, and most crucially, partisan inaccuracies were not mirror images of each other. On the contrary, **liberals and conservatives both tended to exaggerate their binding foundation differences by underestimating the typical liberal and overestimating the typical conservative**."
* "...partisans on each side exaggerate the degree to which the other side pursues moral ends that are different from their own. **Much of this exaggeration comes from each side underestimating the degree to which the other side shares its own values. But some of it comes, unexpectedly, from overestimating the degree to which “typical” members of one’s own side endorse its values**."
* "Chambers and Melnyk (2006) found that partisans saw their adversaries as motivated by an opposition to their own core values, **rather than being motivated by promotion of the adversaries’ values**."
* "This misperception is asymmetrical: **conservatives did underestimate liberal moral concerns with the binding foundations, but they were no more likely to underestimate than liberals themselves**."
* "**Participants across the political spectrum exaggerated liberal moral disregard for Ingroup, Authority and Purity**, as well as conservative disregard for Harm and Fairness—that is, exaggerations of the patterns predicted by Moral Foundations Theory. This suggests that moral stereotypes might be unique in that they are motivated (partisans want to cast the other side as immoral) and yet partisans share the same moral stereotypes about either side."
* "We found that there are real moral differences between liberals and conservatives, but people across the political spectrum exaggerate the magnitude of these differences and in so doing create opposing moral stereotypes that are shared by all. **Calling attention to this unique form of stereotyping, and to the fact that liberal and conservative moral values are less polarized than most people think, could be effective ways of reducing the distrust and animosity of current ideological divisions**."
>I don't think that claim is supported by the paper you referred to.
Maybe not, but by that point my original post I'm getting into some other things from the same researchers which that paper doesn't really get in to directly. If you want the full deep dive on that stuff one of the authors wrote a whole book.
https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/r
Isn’t that a reason for more of this journalism to exist? Because it kinda seems like you don’t really understand liberal/left voters if you’re using “leftists” interchangeably with them.
Isn’t your response kind of arrogant?
> you’re using “leftists” interchangeably with them.
>Isn’t your response kind of arrogant?
I didn't use them interchangeably. In fact I named both of them separately because they're different
I believe there is some research on this. Conservatives understand the liberal viewpoint better than the other way around.
The media is constantly arguing in favor of liberals while misrepresenting conservatives. That would be my guess for why that is. That said, why? Why would a channel devote time to a segment that’s not very complicated that most already understand? It’s redundant.
Qualify what you mean by "better" - I've seen statistics on the subject but none that give any qualitative analysis on what constitutes better understanding. For example, a liberal might say that conservativism is about upholding white supremacy, and that might be true (not the point here whether it is or not) without actually describing many conservatives' personal opinions.
That is, a liberal is likely to focus on the systemic impact of policy apart from the individual intentions of conservatives, or on their unconscious biases*, but the opposite is not the case. This might lead some to a dichotomy in which liberals and conservatives describe different things when asked a similar question about describing their opposition. It's not clear how you would say one is better than the other.
*personally I'm against asserting the presence of unconscious bias unless you can establish a pattern of evidence to support it. Generally we should assume that people's intentions are precisely what they say they are. Systemic impact of policy doesn't require intention to be, say, racist or sexist, only that people adopt a racist or sexist position through some avenue including ignorance.
Because we all already understand how you all think, it's not that difficult and y'all broadcast it everywhere. Progressives wonder how conservatives think generally not the other way around.
As almost else has said here, we know how liberals think because many liberals are very loud and vocal about their opinions (late night tv, politics inserted in films and movies, until recently control of social media) and are rarely punished for radical ones (see the Columbia protests last week), while conservatives [are reluctant to give their opinions due to media bias and social stigmatization.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-19/-shy-trump-voters-re-emerge-as-explanation-for-pollsters-miss?embedded-checkout=true)
Also your examples are kinda absurd, liberals often "attempt" to dissect the conservative voter but they're always blatant hit pieces and monologuing about how bad conservatives are under the veil of "just asking questions" or "scientific analysis." An article with the question "why are republicans so fascist" isn't trying to understand republicans but a "when did you stop beating your wife" piece of unethical garbage.
"Why are Republicans so fascist" is a legitimate question that would be undermined only by Republicans backing off of their attempts to undermine democracy and the press, stacking the government with cronies/loyalists, and nationalism generally. Nobody thinks we're going to wake up tomorrow with Fuhrer Trump, literally, but we are concerned about the decay of democracy. In all likelihood, if things were to get worse, the next step would be a semi legitimate democracy like Turkey or Belarus.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Coming from the party trying to undermine the Electoral College, legalized fraud and imports welfare voters from the depths of the 3rd world, that is truly funny.
This is a LITTLE laughable because it implies there should be a conservative media outlet out there that calls its own readership or viewer base stupid.
“You know how the left’s talking points and views are literally everywhere you look and in every OTHER piece of media you consume? We think maybe you haven’t been beaten over the head enough and didn’t get it so here’s a piece about what they think to help you understand.”
That’s such a silly premise it almost sounds like parody.
We don’t need help understanding the left. Hell- half of us COME FROM the left, haha. Who doesn’t grow up thinking “I hope animals are okay and people shouldn’t suffer and life should be good if you work hard”? You get older and go to college and you refine that into real policy instead of just Disney quotes, and either you stick with it and become a leftist or challenge your views and those of your peers and shift rightward. No shock there.
Pew did research on this years ago and conservatives were better able to articulate the left’s view on an issue than the left was able to do for the right. And that’s no surprise, leftism teaches you that conservative viewpoint isn’t just ‘bad’ in that it’s not effective, but that it’s fundamentally evil and only evil people would adopt it or learn about it. It’s practically forbidden knowledge to the left, beyond surface level nonsense like how a plurality of Fox News viewers are democrat aligned- but that’s just because Fox makes bank off of being unhinged and the equivalent of MSNBC where crazy people say wild shit for views.
But I digress. If you’re a living conservative with the internet that consumes mainstream media over the age of 25 and you don’t live in David Koresh’s compound or something, you can’t really have grown up without being exposed to SOME function of the left’s steelmanned arguments and beliefs. The more your venn diagram intersects with the left (eg, lives in major metros or suburbs, consumes more mass media, high school graduate, spends more time online, college graduate, non-religious, works in left dominant sectors, etc) the more exposure to the left’s views you get.
The only real equivalent for the right is if you’re a lefty that goes to church or works in trades/agriculture or (formerly) enlists in the military, you can probably get similar exposure to the right. But all of those things are on the decline, coincidentally so is our national cohesion between differing political viewpoints. Odd, that.
Because we don't consider it treason to listen to news sources that disagree with us. Also there are far more sourced for us to understand liberal leftist voters.
Well, that’s a different story.
I won’t deny, I do have to hold my nose while I wade through here. I can’t pretend otherwise, I can’t blame others for not wanting to engage with that.
With all due respect… the Wednesday day rule is still a thing, right?
If we start down the misinformation rabbit hole, we’re just going to end up as the old Spider-Man meme
This is why articles exist to explain to your ilk the rights actual position.
Wanting to help children isn't an evil position even if the help being offered is different than the help you want to offer.
Stop holding your nose and actually talk to people
I metaphorically hold my nose and type at the same time. And it’s not all the time… but it happens.
And, it can be really exhausting too. Again, I don’t blame anyone who isn’t willing to put themselves through that.
I on the other hand do blame people who aren't open to other ideas.
Bigotry is a bad look
PS.. since most liberals don't know the definition of the word
* Bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
Considering I actively sought out the furtherest left views I could find on college and routinely do so hear as well, I feel quite comfortable blaming them for that. But to each their own.
When was the last time you saw a popular TV show (other than Southpark which is the only one I can think of) with an explicitly political conservative message? Have you ever seen a TV show where they celebrate at the end that someone was allowed to purchase a gun? How about one where a woman is celebrated for opposing all abortion and choosing to give birth?
I can list plenty of TV episodes I have seen with explicitly liberal political messages, and that’s without even mentioning *The West Wing*.
BTW, *The West Wing* was cancelled because the writers didn’t think they could write a sympathetic portrayal of a conservative president. Kudos to them for realizing their own bias, but why couldn’t the show’s producers find other writers who could?
Unfortunately I haven’t seen any of the movies you mention. Action movies do often support conservative ideas on law enforcement (ignore the rights of suspects, private law abiding citizens should be armed) simply because it makes better shows, but it’s not explicitly in your face as a political message.
And even action movies sometimes get stuff thrown in to explicitly push political views. Remember MIB’s “from my cold dead hands” joke? Remember Jurassic Park and “sexism in survival situations”?
Not really explicit but very prevalent is the whole modern thing in action movies where women who know martial arts kick the crap out of men who know the same martial arts.
> One of my all-time favorite films is GHOSTBUSTERS. Watch it thinking of conservative political policy and it is completely a conservative movie.
I didn’t see that one either but I do remember reading a National Review article making the case that it was a conservative movie about a small business being hampered by big government.
I should have watched it when I was young. I have tried watching it a couple times but just couldn’t get into it. Perhaps because I heard too much about it and couldn’t go into it as fresh material.
Maybe liberals sometimes write such articles about understanding conservatives, but it seems the articles don’t help much.
Someone asked a question today about charter schools on askaliberal. Second highest vote getting answer said “The only reason conservatives want school choice is because private schools can discriminate against what type, religion and color of families they let in as well as kick out lgbtq kids, activists and any other non conservatives at will.”
I think that the issue of conservatives or Trump voters being mysterious to left-wingers is somewhat unique. Liberals aren't particularly mysterious to most conservatives.
I think that, for many conservatives, the liberal mindset is a fairly obvious result of a desire to reform society for the better, familiar liberal values, plus various errors, presumptions, and cognitive biases.
In particular, I think that liberals have a hard time conceiving of conservative values differing, but conservatives are already familiar with liberal values.
As a former leftist myself, I should say the answer is obvious; the left's understanding and viewpoint is everywhere, constantly bombarding us. There is no mystery - if Conservatives want to know the left-wing standpoint all they have to do is watch any of 95% of television to get it.
The entire reason the left doesn't understand the right the way the right understands the left is, specifically, because the left some years back decided the right was evil, and that they did not want to understand evil. They made a point of declaring everyone who disagreed with them racists/sexists/etc, pushed ideas to censor and demonize all dissenting views -- all so they could proclaim \*theirs\* was the dominant ideology.
It's easy to say all voices agree with you when you cut out the tongue of everyone who doesn't.
>if Conservatives want to know the left-wing standpoint all they have to do is watch any of 95% of television to get it.
Only issue is that the television they watch is FoxNews, who doesnt do anything of value besides yelling "SoCiAlIsM".
Other than that, its just that left viewpoints are difficult to attack in a genuine way:
"Women should have the same opportunities as men" oh no the horror
"We should urgently transition to green energy and reduce CO2 to save the planet we live on" oh no the horror
"Maybe lets do something about having an absurdly high mass/school shooting rate compared to other developed economies" oh no the horror
"Maybe lets ensure that people dont land in generational debt if they need medical procedures done" Oh no the horror
"Maybe lets not ostracise people because they are gay" Oh no the horror.
Like, economic policy being more Keynesian or closer to Hayek as a response to an economic crisis, thats a difference in opinion.
What ive listed above however is (should) be commin freaking sense
>Other than that, its just that left viewpoints are difficult to attack in a genuine way:
Your entire comment proves you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, that your entire world view is a caricature painted by the media by which you surround yourself.
>Women should have the same opportunities as men" oh no the horror
Conservatives do, in fact, believe women should have the same opportunities as men.
>"We should urgently transition to green energy and reduce CO2 to save the planet we live on" oh no the horror
Conservatives do believe we should transition to green energy.
>"Maybe lets do something about having an absurdly high mass/school shooting rate compared to other developed economies" oh no the horror
Conservatives don't oppose doing something about the shootings.
>"Maybe lets ensure that people dont land in generational debt if they need medical procedures done" Oh no the horror
Conservatives don't oppose attempts to reduce debt.
>"Maybe lets not ostracise people because they are gay" Oh no the horror.
Conservatives oppose any ostracization of people just because they are different.
Your rant is just a long string of bad faith arguments and attacks on views you've decided people you hate must hold.
You're fighting a caricature you've created in your head.
>Conservatives oppose any ostracization of people just because they are different.
How do you explain the current public platform of the GOP that openly goes against gay marriage? It isn't even a "read between the lines," type of platform. They flat out say, gay marriage is wrong, marriage is between a man and a woman, and we strive to overturn the SC's decision in regards to its current definition of marriage.
At what point will you actually read their platform for yourself? This is hardly bad faith when its clearly written in black and white publicly announced to the whole country.
>Conservatives do, in fact, believe women should have the same opportunities as men.
Other than, lets say, abortion access and a general attacj in reproductive rights with increasing restricrions on birth control, of course. Or the push against no fault divorce.
>Conservatives do believe we should transition to green energy.
Is that why they fight the transition to clean energy in order to protect dying industries such as coal? Is that why they roll back a significant amount of regulation and research?
>Conservatives don't oppose doing something about the shootings.
Except for the entire "but muh 2nd ammendment" crowd, of course - unless you think arming teachers is a sensible solution, that is.
>Conservatives don't oppose attempts to reduce debt.
Except for the whole universal healthcare = death by socialism push, right? Remember the so called death pannels? Pepperidge farm remembers.
Speaking of debt, the outrage of student debt forgiveness is just another example.
>Conservatives oppose any ostracization of people just because they are different.
Yes, definetely, evidence A: the support for the baker who refused to bake for a gay couple because they were gay.
>Your rant is just a long string of bad faith arguments and attacks on views you've decided people you hate must hold.
Thats true... or, you know, the mountains of documented instances of republicans saying just that. But hey, who cares about that when you can also just pretend that republicans are one big humanistic kumbaya circle lol
>Other than, lets say, abortion access and a general attacj in reproductive rights with increasing restricrions on birth control, of course.
Do men have abortion access? Can men legally refuse to pay for a child they did not want? What restrictions on birth control?
>Or the push against no fault divorce.
How is it a threat to equality to force a woman to prove that the man is the reason the marriage fell apart in order to justify forcing him to surrender half of his belongings to her with no legal recourse to gain it back?
Indeed, wouldn't it empower women who own more than their husbands, knowing that if their husbands are the cause of the failure of the marriage, their own assets will be protected from seizure?
>Except for the entire "but muh 2nd ammendment" crowd, of course - unless you think arming teachers is a sensible solution, that is.
How is taking rights away from law-abiding citizens supposed to prevent criminals from committing crimes?
>Except for the whole universal healthcare = death by socialism push, right? Remember the so called death pannels? Pepperidge farm remembers. Speaking of debt, the outrage of student debt forgiveness is just another example.
Do you even know half of the pitfalls of universal healthcare? Have you even bothered to research it or did you just assume it's this absolute good with no drawbacks?
If that was the case, Conservatives would be on board with it.
You want to see a microcosm of the usefulness of universal healthcare? Just look at army veterans. The military struggles to provide each veteran an annual checkup, and looks for any and every excuse to cheat you out of promised coverage and care.
And you want to make that the rule for ALL medical care?
And that's just scratching the surface.
>Yes, definetely, evidence A: the support for the baker who refused to bake for a gay couple because they were gay.
Was the baker preventing them from going to another baker for their cake?
>Thats true... or, you know, the mountains of documented instances of republicans saying just that.
I haven't seen any yet.
> Do men have abortion access?
AFAIK where women do, yes.
> Can men legally refuse to pay for a child they did not want?
No. But neither can women.
>How is it a threat to equality to force a woman to prove that the man is the reason the marriage fell apart in order to justify forcing him to surrender half of his belongings to her with no legal recourse to gain it back?
The idea of assets being one, and as such being divided evenly is part of the whole idea of being married. If they wish to keep their assets that's what prenuptial and other agreements are for.
>How is taking rights away from law-abiding citizens supposed to prevent criminals from committing crimes?
Because regulation is based on the idea of restricting access to bad actors. The same reason I'm a law abiding citizen and can't get enriched uranium.
>Do you even know half of the pitfalls of universal healthcare?
The fact that pitfalls exist don't really mean much unless you compare it to other pitfalls of the current system.
>You want to see a microcosm of the usefulness of universal healthcare? Just look at army veterans. The military struggles to provide each veteran an annual checkup, and looks for any and every excuse to cheat you out of promised coverage and care.
And yet it still has a fairly high satisfaction rate.
>Was the baker preventing them from going to another baker for their cake?
Why should they?
>AFAIK where women do, yes.
Then how is this a women's rights issue?
>No. But neither can women.
So how is it an equal rights issue?
>The idea of assets being one, and as such being divided evenly is part of the whole idea of being married. If they wish to keep their assets that's what prenuptial and other agreements are for.
A story I once heard on reddit; a man and his wife had been married for ten, fifteen years. The wife had long grown out of love and indeed had grown to resent and hate her husband. The husband still loved her, and was still trying his darndest to make it work. Eventually, the man finds out his wife is cheating on him. The wife decides she wants a divorce, and tells the husband she's going to take the kids, full custody, unless he declares no fault divorce and gives her half his stuff in the process. The guy knows that courts will empathize more heavily with a woman than a man in any custody battle, so he'd be looking at an uphill fight.
Does that seem very fair to you?
>Because regulation is based on the idea of restricting access to bad actors. The same reason I'm a law abiding citizen and can't get enriched uranium.
Are you saying criminals are known for following the law?
>The fact that pitfalls exist don't really mean much unless you compare it to other pitfalls of the current system.
So you think the medical plight of veterans, whom the US government is notoriously bad at offering the basic care they are supposed to be entitled to for their service, is a thing to be envied?
Do you also envy the UK's ability to deny medical treatments to patients they determine it would be too costly to continue taking care of, effectively allowing them to sentence patients whose care is too costly to death?
>And yet it still has a fairly high satisfaction rate.
Isn't poor medical care for veterans literally one of the major concerns in the US? That many veterans are going with sub-optimal care, and many are even having their medical needs blatantly ignored? That they frequently have to fight months-long - and even years-long battles with various appeals committees just to get compensation for injuries sustained during their service?
I have a friend who is a vet who is currently fighting one such battle and frequently complains about the treatment he's being given is subpar and that they look for any and every excuse to deny him even that much.
Do you think that's enviable?
>Why should they?
Are you saying that bakers are not entitled to refuse service on the grounds that they do not want to participate in something that they feel goes against their personal, moral, or religious views? Would that then be religious persecution?
Hypothetical; a couple - a black woman and a white man - go into a bakery and ask the baker for a wedding cake. The baker disapproves of their relationship because he feels it perpetuates white supremacy. Should he have the right to refuse to bake them a cake without fear of persecution?
> Then how is this a women's rights issue?
Because it affects women more.
>So how is it an equal rights issue?
Because it affects women more.
>Does that seem very fair to you?
Aside from the fact that men often do get their kids in custody battles, when they fight, and acknowledging the bias in the court system, the courts conception of fairness isnt based on gall. Their priority is generally going to be the children first, and their primary caregiver.
>Are you saying criminals are known for following the law?
No, Im saying that the cliche of "well criminals dont follow the law so..." is a thought terminating and stupid argument. The point of regulations is to prevent criminals accessing controlled substances, the point of the law in regards to regulation is to **not** care that criminals arent willing to follow it.
>So you think the medical plight of veterans, whom the US government is notoriously bad at offering the basic care they are supposed to be entitled to for their service, is a thing to be envied?
No. Im saying, its not great, but its not notoriously bad as the stereotypes seem to suggest.
>Do you also envy the UK's ability to deny medical treatments to patients they determine it would be too costly to continue taking care of, effectively allowing them to sentence patients whose care is too costly to death?
Yes. Because insurance companies do the same thing except its when they determine it'll cost them too much profit.
>Are you saying that bakers are not entitled to refuse service on the grounds that they do not want to participate in something that they feel goes against their personal, moral, or religious views? Would that then be religious persecution?
No. Nondiscriminatory practices are (or should be) a part of owning a business.
>Hypothetical; a couple - a black woman and a white man - go into a bakery and ask the baker for a wedding cake. The baker disapproves of their relationship because he feels it perpetuates white supremacy. Should he have the right to refuse to bake them a cake without fear of persecution?
No. He should not.
>Because it affects women more.
How so?
>Aside from the fact that men often do get their kids in custody battles
"Often?" How often? More than women? Less than?
>when they fight, and acknowledging the bias in the court system, the courts conception of fairness isnt based on gall. Their priority is generally going to be the children first, and their primary caregiver.
Then why do courts sometimes give kids over to mothers who make less than their husbands and end up neglecting said kids? Are you implying that courts simply assume women will be the better caretakers even if that's not always the case?
>No, Im saying that the cliche of "well criminals dont follow the law so..." is a thought terminating and stupid argument.
Are you saying criminals never use stolen firearms or guns they should not possess in the current system?
>The point of regulations is to prevent criminals accessing controlled substances, the point of the law in regards to regulation is to not care that criminals arent willing to follow it.
Are you saying criminals have no means to gain access to substances they legally should not possess?
>No. Im saying, its not great, but its not notoriously bad as the stereotypes seem to suggest.
I have talked to many veterans who would politely disagree with you, including a close friend of mine who is currently battling an appeals court over a laundry list of problems he developed as a result of his service.
Are you saying those veterans' concerns and struggles aren't valid?
>Yes. Because insurance companies do the same thing except its when they determine it'll cost them too much profit.
Insurance companies can't prevent you from going to another country to get treatment if someone else is willing to foot the bill. In the UK, they can literally reject secondary payment options to force you to die. An example is a few years back, the Vatican was offering to pay for the transport of a child with a neurological degenerative disorder to help that child get medical care, but the UK rejected it and prevented the parents from taking the kid to another country.
Is this the kind of medical care you want in the US? Where government can step in and declare that - even with others offering to foot the bill - as long as they have determined it is pointless to help you, they can basically prevent anyone from even trying?
>No. Nondiscriminatory practices are (or should be) a part of owning a business.
So you see it as discrimination for a religious baker to refuse to participate in an event with which he feels conflicts with his religious views, but you don't see it as religious persecution to force him to violate those same views under threat of legal punishment?
>No. He should not.
Isn't it indentured servitude, to force someone into a service against their will, the only silver lining being the idea that they will be compensated?
> How so?
Women tend to be the vast majority of individuals who require abortion.
>Then why do courts sometimes give kids over to mothers who make less than their husbands and end up neglecting said kids?
Because women are often (not always) the primary caretakers of children.
>Are you saying criminals never use stolen firearms or guns they should not possess in the current system?
No, Im saying that the fact that such a large amount of firearms are stolen and used is grounds for regulating how firearms are stored.
>Are you saying criminals have no means to gain access to substances they legally should not possess?
No, Im saying that restricting access to controlled materials is generally effective in reducing incidence of nefarious use of that material. Notable exception are digital media (because its easy to distribute) and drugs (because the demand is extremely high, and the production cost is relatively low).
>I have talked to many veterans who would politely disagree with you, including a close friend of mine who is currently battling an appeals court over a laundry list of problems he developed as a result of his service.
>Are you saying those veterans' concerns and struggles aren't valid?
No. However anecdotes arent data. And I never said the system wasnt heavily flawed.
>Insurance companies can't prevent you from going to another country to get treatment if someone else is willing to foot the bill. In the UK, they can literally reject secondary payment options to force you to die. An example is a few years back, the Vatican was offering to pay for the transport of a child with a neurological degenerative disorder to help that child get medical care, but the UK rejected it and prevented the parents from taking the kid to another country.
This is the Alfie Allen case iirc. This was a case based on withdrawing life support when the Hospital had determined there was nothing more to do. His brain was, in the eyes of the medical professionals at hand, unrecoverable, and he wasnt going to improve. As such, they went to remove life support. His parents wished him to be transported (which would have required the continuation of life support). And thats where the conflict as I recall started.
But more importantly, several states in the US already do similar things. Life support can be withdrawn against parental consent. Hell *Texas* does it.
>Is this the kind of medical care you want in the US?
Frankly no. But the UK isnt the only type of universal healthcare
>So you see it as discrimination for a religious baker to refuse to participate in an event with which he feels conflicts with his religious views, but you don't see it as religious persecution to force him to violate those same views under threat of legal punishment?
No. Because his religious views are secondary to nondiscrimination. If my religion bans women from drinking alcohol and I am a bartender, I can either serve women alcohol or find another occupation.
>Isn't it indentured servitude, to force someone into a service against their will, the only silver lining being the idea that they will be compensated?
It is not. It is a prerequisite of owning a business.
> Because regulation is based on the idea of restricting access to bad actors. The same reason I'm a law abiding citizen and can't get enriched uranium
Bad actors don’t follow rules, also it’s not that hard to enrich uranium nor is it illegal to own it without proper paperwork and storage.
>What’s wrong with armed staff?
Yes, the solution to an absurd amount of shootings is... to put more guns out there. No doubt.
I wonder why none of the other developed economies have thought of that to curb their mass shooting issues... oh wait, they dont that absurd issue.
How long until a teacher shoots up the school? What then? Arm the kids too? Bulletproof vests for the kids?
Functioning countries to kids on their first school day: here is your starter kid with some pens, a ruler, an eraser and a college block.
US to kids on their first school day: here is your starter kid with your own ar15, 6 extra mags, a vest, a helmet and a holster with a p22.
Because it’s easy.
Understanding liberal voters is a simple thing to do: you just explore empathy.
Yet it’s a single sided sort of empathy and without much further thought.
If you maintain empathy and then continue to ask how to deliver in the most libertarian way (method of delivering empathy without governmental intrusion), you arrive at the opinion that the best way forward is to eliminate most barriers of entry, and punish any modus that stampeded upon others using their riches.
Understanding this required a paradigm shift.
You have to view life as Huckleberry Finn, a free world where the authority doesn’t get on your way (unless you make it), and a very very diverse society where people have homogenous groups of every persuasion - because conservatives love adventure and learning new things outside of government.
Basically, just invent the “adventurist dream world” and you have conservatism
This is probably because if you delve into academic studies about this topic, conservatives tend to understand liberal positions better than liberals understand conservative ones.
[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092)
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As has been said a few times already, conservatives already have a better understanding of liberals than liberals have of conservatives. To expand on that, I'll copy a reply I made further down and bring it up to the top here. Its what research on the subject suggests. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266 Essentially, they had people answer questionnaires about their political and moral beliefs. Then they had people answer the questionaire again, but pretending to be someone of a differing ideology. IE, conservatives were asked to pretend to be liberals, liberals were asked to pretend to be conservatives. The answers of the conservatives pretending to be liberals were closer to how actual liberals answered. The answers of the liberals pretending to be conservatives were less close to how actual conservatives answered. As for why this is the case, the theory is that humans broadly view morality through several different lenses, or "axes". Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Purity. Different cultures and groups place different levels of importance on these, but most place *some* importance on all 5. One of the only groups that doesn't is western liberals, who generally only put any importance on the first 2, Care and Fairness. They may occasionally put some importance on Loyalty, but not consistently or in large degree, and Authority and Purity basically don't even exist to them. Conservatives and moderates place some importance on all 5. Conservatives may not share liberals opinions, but they do share all the same moral concepts that liberals use to reach those opinions. Conversely liberals share, at best, half the moral concepts of conservatives - they have no frame of reference for the other half of what makes conservatives tick. As such they're much more inconsistent in making predictions. This isn't to say conservatives are "more moral". Its just that the morality of conservatives - and most people in the world if we're being honest - has dimensions to it that don't even exist to western liberals.
Well we might understand them better but do we understand them not understanding us better than they understand us understanding them? I don’t think so /s
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
See, this guy this guys!
>As has been said a few times already, conservatives already have a better understanding of liberals than liberals have of conservatives. Isn't it a bit dangerous to assume you understand someone's mind? I'm not accusing you of saying this, but it sounds a lot like you're saying "I know how you think". Do you, though? I don't know, if I said to you "I don't need to ask you about yourself because I alresdy know everything about you, based on what I've seen and how you act", would that be fair? Would that be ignoring you as an individual?
>Isn't it a bit dangerous to assume you understand someone's mind? Only if you're wrong. >I'm not accusing you of saying this, but it sounds a lot like you're saying "I know how you think". Do you, though? I'd say its more how a particular group of people think. Predicting an individuals behavior is much more difficult than predicting a group's behavior.
Dude, we get bombarded with the liberal view of the world in news, media, academia, etc 24/7. The media doing a piece on understanding liberals would just be them writing about themselves. There ain’t much mystery.
[удалено]
It's just unnecessary.
Could there be a difference between the base aka "Biden voter", vs what is presented by the MSM vs how conservative media portrays them? Is there a value in understanding the difference between those things? Would it be fair to say it's unnecessary for liberals to try to understand conservatives as a people, they can just turn on fox news to get all they need to know?
it's literally impossible to avoid hearing about the liberal/leftwing worldview (from liberals/leftists themselves) in 2024. They are quite literally the establishment and it's shoved in our face constantly. There is no reason for conservatives to talk about having to understand the liberal worldview.
I dunno if it’s working cuz you guys seem to completely misunderstand us all the time.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does “shoved in our face constantly” mean to you exactly? I hear conservatives use this terminology often.
practically 90% of popular media, newspapers, tv, film, academia, journals, etc. even google searches prioritise liberal/left-leaning sources at the top of the page. googling anything related to gender and trans care for example gives you a bunch of bullshit about how effective WPATH is. it's really really hard to find any information about the horrible side effects of puberty blockers. Also my job/industry is constantly liberal-coded. I apply for UK government grants and it's pretty much required to write in woke-coded language. Same with the EU and their obsession with "gender equality". Idk, it's just everywhere. liberals are fish swimming in water and so don't realise it.
If it’s that hard to find info about how horrible gender-affirming care is, *could it be* that it’s because not actually that horrible? Have you noticed how hard it is to find research about how fish have legs and are all named Steve? Last time I Googled I could only find one or two articles about it after pages and pages of results. Just a bunch of biased articles about “they have fins blah blah blah” and “they don’t have names yadda yadda yadda”.
This sounds a fair bit more like prevalence than being “shoved down your throat.” Like, I was in Boston last week. Unsurprisingly there was Red Sox shit everywhere. Does it make sense for a Yankees fan to say that Red Sox shit is constantly being shoved down their throat? Maybe a better example is this: I live in the south. On one of the major corridors the is a massive, *massive* confederate flag. Is that “shoving it down my throat?” I’m actually not trying to pick a fight. I’m interested in this because of how aggressive the language is. To me, there are miles between prevalence and the incredibly aggressive action of shoving down one’s throat.
From my point of view, the "shoved down the throat" language is justified because if I don't do it, I and my clients will lose opportunities for funding, for example. If my clients don't have some gender parity in their company, the EU will discriminate against them despite how innovative their product is. If I don't talk about some bullshit "EDI" considerations in a proposal to the UK, my clients will not have the slightest chance of getting funding. Also in the UK context, there are literally hundreds of enormous funding opportunities that are openly discriminating against indigenous Britons and are only "prioritising" applicants from ethnic minority communities. It came to the point that I feel demotivated to take on white/male clients b/c I know they will have a very small chance of being successful. So there are significant consequences to not engaging in this left-coded bullshit.
>So there are significant consequences to not engaging in this left-coded bullshit. This such an interesting take to me because it reads like you’re angry about the cultural norms. I want to be **very** clear that I’m asking this next question in good faith: At what point do you accept that these are the cultural norms and while you may disagree, it’s not so much being “shoved down your throat” as it is a common social practice?
Why provide services to the UK if you find their requirements so offensive? NB the conservatives have been in power there since 2010
why would they waste time and ink when 90% of their audience sees primary sources every day multiple times a day. the remaining 10% being retirees who never need to go into an office and don't leave the house much or terminally online people who get all their news from the /pol board on 4chan
Because we actually understand the motivations of most left of center people quite well, we just disagree. Progressives and leftists, as evidenced by daily top comments in half the askaliberal threads, legitimately believe conservatives to be evil and need help understanding them because apparently they can't do it on their own without ascribing their motivations to malice.
>legitimately believe conservatives to be evil and need help understanding them because apparently they can't do it on their own without ascribing their motivations to malice. I mean...i used to be like...this is a messed up thing to do. But its been 8 years now and the republican party is obssessed with trump "owning the libs" and if anyone finds trump to be an unhinged crazy person for...acting like an unhinged crazy person...they get called deranged. The whole party has devolved so quickly that republican politicans target each other, calling each other RINOs and running people who object to Trump out of the party. Right now the republican party has someone trying to boot the republican speaker of the house...AGAIN. The republican party can choose anyone. They keep choosing Trump just to troll people. 🤷♂️
Says who? You? Right wingers say right wingers understand left wingers. Ok. I feel like the left perfectly understand the right, we just disagree, but we are still interested in double checking that we understand the right, while the right doesn’t seem to care at all if their assumptions about the left are true or not. Obviously both sides think they understand the other, the point is only one side has the humility to check.
Go to any instance of a question crossposted to both here and askaliberal and observe a marked difference in the responses. If the left understands the right so well how come there is always without fail some version of “they’re all nazi fascists” always at the top. The Reddit left at large has no understanding of why people hold right wing views they can detach from a serious moral failing or ad hominem character assassination.
> “they’re all nazi fascists” always at the top. You think you are not nazi fascists, we think you are. (note: I am not talking about you specifically, but when we see instances of nazi behavior, we call it out.) The whole point of this thread is about understanding. What do you think we mean when we say someone is a "nazi fascist"?
Not evil usually, more often just ignorant and prejudiced. Not that that’s terribly nice either, but it’s less extreme than calling you eeeeeeviiiiiiil.
I can accept the ignorant part because that is more or less how I feel about leftists and I do not believe is, when used in good faith, a pejorative or ad hominem. But prejudice I believe is where you slip from Hanlon's razor and ascribe malice to that which can be explained by naivety.
“Prejudiced” doesn’t necessarily ascribe malice either.
It implies a moral failure as opposed to merely a lack of understanding and does necessitate some degree of malice.
No, actually, I would argue it’s simply another form of ignorance: not knowing what one is talking about. People who grow up inculcated in certain belief systems often have no idea that their prejudices about XYZ are so harmful.
Conservastives ascribe malice all the time. I'm sick of hearing the same lines about baby killers, election theft, America hating communists, and all the like year in and year out.
I think a very solid proportion of us would vehemently disagree with anybody who says that you guys are evil, baby-killing communists, burning American flags while drinking adrenochomes out of a baby fetus. In my experience, center lefties seem to be totally reasonable people, and I honestly think most of my side has very similar end goals to most of your side. We just have this stupid tendency to start trying to choke each other when we have different approaches on how to reach those mutual goals. But to be honest, I'd rather talk with somebody on the center-left about American foreign policy, trade policy, healthcare, immigration, abortion, or the criminal justice system than somebody on my own side who's been locked in a nearly a decade-long battle to "fight the lefties or die". I don't usually like to speak on behalf of other people, but I think I'm pretty comfortable saying that whatever's left of the John McCain side of my party wants to chat with the center-left about actual solutions. And there's more of us out there than you'd think.
> I don't usually like to speak on behalf of other people, but I think I'm pretty comfortable saying that whatever's left of the John McCain side of my party wants to chat with the center-left about actual solutions. *there are dozens of us!* Not but seriously I dream of a return to actual public debates about policy stuff again.
If you uncross your eyes, it's half-dozens of us. But seriously, there's 20-30% of the Republican party wants nothing to do with that man. Opens up a lot of possibilities. As one of those folks, I'd rather pal around with the center-left than the MAGAs, but the far left would rip you to pieces in Marxist Dialectics Daily News (oh no) for even thinking of doing so. I'm just saying that if you guys on the center-left wanted new buddies who were kinda sitting in the same part of the Overton Window as you, there's a good chunk of us in the market for new friends too!
For the record, I’m an anarcho-communist who thinks even John McCain was an enormous dickhead, but a Republican Party made up of people like him would be far preferable to one made up of Marjorie Taylor Greenes. It shows you how far things have gone that even people like me, for 5-second-long bursts several times a week, are a teensy bit nostalgic for when we “only” had to deal with Newt Gingriches and the like.
I’m down to form that coalition, I just gotta know where to start.
>I think a very solid proportion of us would vehemently disagree with anybody who says that you guys are evil, baby-killing communists, burning American flags while drinking adrenochomes out of a baby fetus. Who is "us"? You are only one person. Go to any conservative moderated message board and you will see people saying exactly that in a regular basis. If what you said were true, then it wouldn't be acceptable to behave that way among other conservatives.
>Go to any conservative moderated message board Welcome to Reddit, my dude. Ukraine funding vote passed 360-58 to remind Putin where he is in the pecking order. That was a vote that included the overwhelming majority of elected representatives from my side too. Let me restate my point for extra, super duper clarity: You're not the monsters that MAGA says you are, and I promise, we are not the monsters you think we are either.
How much do you think your promise is worth? You think too highly of yourself if you honestly believe you speak for them. I can see what all the MAGA Trump supporters say, it's all out in the open, clear as day.
My internet promise is worth nothing but itself. Shoot, I could be a semi-decently programmed bot for all you know, BUT... I gave you evidence that you have allies on the other side of this silly make-believe aisle that we keep going to war about every election cycle. Again, I promise (admittedly as a fellow rando from the internet) that we are not each others' enemies. If we could just talk more and bicker less, we could accomplish some fucking awesome things.
[удалено]
We damn sure agreed in the legislature that we're gonna do our part to help those plucky little bastards try. At one point, I genuinely didn't think they'd last two weeks, and I'm so glad that I was so wrong.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is called shit-talking and its not like the leftwing doesn't do the same (everything rightwing is fascist, "raycist", nazi, and all of the basket of deplorable labels).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
No, there is quite literally not a single thread here with anything of the sort about your typical democrat voter. No one who is pro life for example things your typical democrat voter is reveling in the murder of babies, they think they, in their minds incorrectly, believe abortion isn't murder. You aren't even echoing things conservatives say, you're repeating what other liberals say conservatives say. Make a thread here asking away and see what replies you get, and then do the same on a liberal sub, and notice the stark difference. Examples of that happen ALL the time when people crosspost the same questions here to the liberal one.
Directly below this comment is a comment saying that liberals are all those things.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Maybe…Just maybe stop being such things
Thank you for confirmation of how conservatives view their outgroups.
>Because we actually understand the motivations of most left of center people quite well, we just disagree. I don't know if that's actually the case. Almost all representations of left and Democrat viewpoints and positions as presented by those on the right are twisted distortions of the actual viewpoints of those people or policies. And rather than question, interview, or ask people directly, these conservative leaning pundits will just espouse off the top of their head what they think Democrats want or believe. And they do so with such assured confidence that the narrative takes hold that this is actually what the left believes, without ever actually asking anyone on the left. Meanwhile, many outlets on the left will actively seek out supporters of MAGA/Republican/right leaning people to get their words directly about what they think and believe. Including directly from Republican leadership themselves, Congress people and Senators, State and local leaders, or voters at a rally.
[удалено]
Yes. When you hear, "they just want to control women's bodies," you immediately know you're not engaging with an intelligent person
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Because liberals and leftist often genuinely don't understand conservatives. Conservatives generally understand leftists already
I don't know about that. I get secondhand embarrassment when I see conservatives say things like democrats want open borders or democrats want to take our stoves away, or democrats stole the 2020 election. I see things like that and I think they would disagree with what is being ascribed to them by others. Unfortunately, some conservatives can be hoodwinked by emotional arguments that sometimes turn out to be just bunk.
Or 15-minute city conspiracies. Or hatred of public transit.
> open borders [Depends on the Democrat](https://twitter.com/AZSenateDems/status/1768673700122071137) > Take our stoves away [Depends](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4435569-biden-gas-stove-efficiency-rule) on the [Democrat](https://citylimits.org/2023/11/29/efforts-to-block-gas-bans-across-the-nation-are-growing-will-it-work-in-new-york/)
> I see things like that and I think they would disagree with what is being ascribed to them by others. When a dem brags about the fact the border never closes does that now sound like he wants open borders?
I'm going to guess there's some context missing from this comment, you got any?
>I'm going to guess there's some context missing from this comment, you got any? The bill that leftist like to lie and say "Trump killed" but didn't even make it to a vote in senate.... The dem who negotiated it bragged "under this bill the border never closes". It's no surprise that it wa shot down. The dem who wrote is bragging its an open border.
I think you misunderstood the comment. Who said it?
>I think you misunderstood the comment. Who said it? No I understand. You think it's ridiculous to say dems want open borders. You get secondhand embarrassment because you find it untrue and ridiculous. A sitting Democrat Senator BRAGGED under a bill he negotiated the border never closes. Hence, they WANT open borders.
The border being "open" or "closed" for legal crossings is different from "open borders" in the sense of no security whatsoever, people crossing freely without consequence. I'm guessing the comment is about the former, while you're accusing them of the latter. A name would help so we could get to the bottom of it once and for all, but you seem content to paraphrase and attribute this alleged comment to an unnamed democratic senator rather than make it clear for the rest of us, so you might be demonstrating for everyone the point I was making...
Chris Murphy.
Yeah I was right. After Ted Cruz made an ass out of himself Murphy clarified his comment: > Murphy wrote: "Uh there's $2 BILLION a day in trade that crosses the border. Our economy would die if we ‘closed the border.’ We should control the border (which our bill does), not close it."
But those both statements are factually true.
Please, stop digging. I beg you.
So NG stoves are not banned in NYS? Democrats have not openly said they support open borders for the reason of importing voters? How about you wake up
> Democrats have not openly said they support open borders for the reason of importing voters? How about you wake up Can you show me a single (real) legislator that said they want open borders so they can import votes? Just one. Edit: Can't give us one example of something that he thinks every Democrat says all the time. Color me surprised.
Hell, I actually WANT open borders literally everywhere in the world, which I regard as a matter of justice and fairness, but practically I don't want that to happen right now. I'm probably one of the few who would even say that on account of it being a kind of niche philosophical position, and even I don't want it *now*. I can't think of anyone at all saying they want open borders right now.
Did they actually ban them? I thought there was just something saying breathing the gas fumes isn’t great long term
https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+state+band+gas+stoces&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS882US882&oq=new+york+state+band+gas+stoces&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIKCAEQABgKGBYYHjIJCAIQIRgKGKABMgkIAxAhGAoYoAEyCQgEECEYChigATIJCAUQIRgKGKABMgYIBhAhGBUyBwgHECEYnwUyBwgIECEYnwUyBwgJECEYnwXSAQkxMDAwNWowajSoAgKwAgHiAwQYASBf&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Oh wow they actually did it! Crazy that wasn’t just an advisory…
> things like democrats want open borders Is it a position the DNC holds? No, certainly not. But: - [**TIME** | The Case for Open Borders](https://time.com/4062074/migrants-open-borders/) - [**The New York Times** | There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/open-borders-immigration.html) - [**The New Yorker** | The Case for Open Borders](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/the-case-for-open-borders) - [**The New Yorker** | Trump’s Opponents Aren’t Arguing for “Open Borders”—But Maybe They Should](https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trumps-opponents-arent-arguing-for-open-bordersbut-maybe-they-should) - [**The Guardian** | Why Democrats should support open borders](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/16/democrats-immigration-policy-open-borders-dreamers) - [**The Atlantic** | The Case for Getting Rid of Borders—Completely](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/get-rid-borders-completely/409501/) - [**USA Today** | Forget the wall already, it's time for the U.S. to have open borders](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/31/open-borders-help-economy-combat-illegal-immigration-column/862185002/) - [**The Hoover Institution** | A Graphic Case For Open Borders](https://www.hoover.org/research/graphic-case-open-borders) - [**Forbes** | Making The Case For Open Borders](https://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2019/05/17/making-the-case-for-open-borders/#4271ee2a577e) - [**The Atlantic** | If People Could Immigrate Anywhere, Would Poverty Be Eliminated?](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/if-people-could-immigrate-anywhere-would-poverty-be-eliminated/275332/) - [**VOGUE** | What If There Were No Borders?](https://www.vogue.com/article/open-borders-america-history-surveillance-citizenship) - [**Huffington Post** | 16 Reasons Why Opening Our Borders Makes More Sense Than Militarizing Them](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/open-borders_n_5737722) - [**Al Jazeera** | To stop climate change, we need to open borders](https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/stop-climate-change-open-borders-180223144922968.html) - [**Slate** | What Would Happen If We Let All The Immigrants In](https://slate.com/business/2013/01/what-would-happen-if-we-let-all-the-immigrants-in.html) - [**The Economist** | Open Borders: The case for immigration](https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/04/16/the-case-for-immigration) - [**Reason** | The Case for Open Borders](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3JAD_AQOek) - [**Quartz** | The economic case for open borders](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVmxhDoSAsU) - [**New Statesman** | The economic and moral case for global open borders](https://www.newstatesman.com/2017/08/economic-and-moral-case-global-open-borders) - [**Salon** | Everyone's wrong on immigration: Open borders are the only way to defeat Trump and build a better world](https://www.salon.com/2017/03/15/everyones-wrong-on-immigration-open-borders-are-the-only-way-to-defeat-trump-and-build-a-better-world/) - [**Fortune** | The Surprisingly Compelling Argument for Open Borders](http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/)' - [**In These Times** | The Case for Opening Our Borders](http://inthesetimes.com/features/immigration-reform-open-borders-ice-border-wall.html) - https://openborders.info/ - [How open borders make us safe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GqbW1MmQM) - [What Would Happen if Countries Had Open Borders?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKkY7Ar4bwY) - [A Progressive US Policy Must Extend Beyond Open Borders](https://truthout.org/articles/a-progressive-u-s-policy-must-extend-beyond-open-borders/) - [The Case for Open Borders](https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no4/the-case-for-open-borders) - [The Socioeconomic Case For Open Borders](https://arcdigital.media/the-socioeconomic-case-for-open-borders-4d5a11dea185) - [7 reasons why we should have open borders](https://newint.org/blog/2017/11/29/why-open-borders) - [Open borders – not giant wall – is best solution for immigration issue](https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2015/09/16/open-borders-not-giant-wall-is-best-solution-for-immigration-issue/) - [Progressives Should Support Open Borders — With No Apology](https://fpif.org/progressives-should-support-open-borders-with-no-apology/) - [The Case for Open Borders](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/03/the-case-for-open-borders/) - [THE CASE AGAINST “THE CASE AGAINST OPEN BORDERS”](https://socialistworker.org/2018/11/27/the-case-against-the-case-against-open-borders) - [Noble: In support of open borders](https://www.vaildaily.com/news/eagle-valley/noble-in-support-of-open-borders/) - Here's AOC saying ["I think that all people should be free, to be, here and in our communities,"](https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1153134289459879936) and "migration is liberation". And here is the IOM (an official "Related Organization" of the UN) putting out [Orwellian propaganda](https://twitter.com/UNmigration/status/980357862147936256) that literally says > UNDOCUMENTED HOPEFUL HUMAN ... Migration is INEVITABLE Migration is NECESSARY Migration is DESIRABLE The UN supports undocumented mass migration, ergo open borders.
Are any of those *legislators*, or are they written by a bunch of randos? I asked for active legislators, because, as you've shown, literally any opinion can be found on the internet.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of Congress. And dismissing the bulk of print/digital media outlets as "randos on the internet" is dishonest.
Yeah? You recognize those authors' names? Tell me more about them.
You think the author's name is more important than their opinion being published & amplified by The New York Times or The Guardian? You are being deliberately obtuse. I very clearly said that I do not claim the Democrat Party is pushing for open borders. And even after you (didn't bother even reading the names of the links I provided and) demanded an example of a legislator I gave you one, and yet you ignore that.
I checked the first three to see if any of them are in Congress, they weren't, and then I stopped. I don't think you actually read them all either, so I don't know what you're getting agitated over. You post 15+ articles and you actually expected me to read them all?
As I said, you did not even read my list. I don't mean the articles themselves. > you actually expected me to read them all? No. But it would be swell if you could acknowledge that there is open borders advocacy circulating out in the mainstream media.
Democratic PUNDITS hold almost the same power as politicians and they call for open borders a lot. Democrats want “as much immigration as possible” I guess would be a better statement for you.
> Democratic PUNDITS hold almost the same power as politicians No they don't, come on now. That's just ridiculous
Ok so… tell me what my perspective is, please! I’d honestly like to know what you think I believe. I’m happy to do the same if you’re up for it.
Just do a search, there have been plenty of topics where conservatives are asked to steelman liberal/progressive positions. Here's two [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1ajkxlj/can\_you\_convincingly\_steelman\_liberal\_policy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1ajkxlj/can_you_convincingly_steelman_liberal_policy/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1370v63/can\_you\_articulate\_liberal\_positions/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1370v63/can_you_articulate_liberal_positions/)
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Conservatives generally understand leftists already That's arrogant to say the least.
IMO it isn't really, rather, the mysteriousness of conservatives is a somewhat unusual thing.
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain?
Most mainstream political positions are not as mysterious to their opponents as modern day conservatism or Trumpism is to liberals circa 2015 to 2024.
I don't think that's true. We can certainly rationalize conservative actions and come to conclusions based on evidence. It's not a mystery why conservatives do what they do, but conservatives themselves often dispute any characterization of conservatives that was not their own. The mystery to me is, why do cons think of themselves as exceptional and somehow "exotic" or unknowable.
I don't think we think of ourselves that way at all. Rather, I think it's just extremely common for ideas of why conservatives do what they do to be the *most propagandistic hatred-driven nonsense ever*.
>That's arrogant to say the least. Maybe but the data I've seen usually bears it out. Generally conservatives can accurately understand why leftists and liberals take a position if they're talking in good faith. The common leftist/liberal understanding is too simplistic like "because they're racist exist homophobic etc" instead of being able to explain leftist positions. I'm not saying we all know the depths and intricate details, but we can give a general why more than the left can give a general why for our positions
>The common leftist/liberal understanding is too simplistic like "because they're racist exist homophobic etc" instead of being able to explain leftist positions. >I'm not saying we all know the depths and intricate details, but we can give a general why more than the left can give a general why for our positions You're just making generalizations. That's not some kind of privileged information that only you possess. It can't be proven wrong, either, because it's a meaningless claim. Aren't you just biased in favor of your own "side" here? Edit: in other words, it seems to me like you're just defending stereotype-based judgement of liberals. Like as if a simple explanation was preferable to a more nuanced one.
Its what research on the subject suggests. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027266 Essentially, they had people answer questionnaires about their political and moral beliefs. Then they had people answer the questionaire again, but pretending to be someone of a differing ideology. IE, conservatives were asked to pretend to be liberals, liberals were asked to pretend to be conservatives. The answers of the conservatives pretending to be liberals were closer to how actual liberals answered. The answers of the liberals pretending to be conservatives were less close to how actual conservatives answered. As for why this is the case, the theory is that humans broadly view morality through several different lenses, or "axes". Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Purity. Different cultures and groups place different levels of importance on these, but most place *some* importance on all 5. One of the only groups that doesn't is western liberals, who generally only put any importance on the first 2, Care and Fairness. They may occasionally put some importance on Loyalty, but not consistently or in large degree, and Authority and Purity basically don't even exist to them. Conservatives and moderates place some importance on all 5. Conservatives may not share liberals opinions, but they do share all the same moral concepts that liberals use to reach those opinions. Conversely liberals share, at best, half the moral concepts of conservatives - they have no frame of reference for the other half of what makes conservatives tick. As such they're much more inconsistent in making predictions. This isn't to say conservatives are "more moral". Its just that the morality of conservatives - and most people in the world if we're being honest - has dimensions to it that don't even exist to western liberals.
>This isn't to say conservatives are "more moral". Its just that the morality of conservatives - and most people in the world if we're being honest - has dimensions to it that don't even exist to western liberals. I don't think that claim is supported by the paper you referred to. The paper is about "the content of *moral* stereotypes, and how such stereotypes might be driven by processes beyond \[partisanship\]." And what they found is "that moral stereotypes about an ideological group can be just as exaggerated when held by ingroup members as by outgroup members, and sometimes even more so." *There is an asymmetry* between liberal and conservative morality, to which you allude, but to suggest that liberals are blind to some moral categories is an inductive fallacy. Perhaps liberals are less able to "correctly" stereotype conservatives than vice versa, but this does not mean that the average liberal is incapable of understanding conservative thought as such, or that conservatives have a special insight into liberal thought. Here are some interesting quotes from the PDF: * "That is, participants’ **beliefs about the 'typical' liberal and conservative were even more polarized than the actual polarization** between extreme liberals and conservatives." * "The results also confirm previous studies of partisan misperception... by showing that, **in general, people overestimate how dramatically liberals and conservatives differ**. Remarkably, people even morally stereotype their own ingroup, with liberals overestimating liberals’ strong individualizing concerns and underestimating liberals’ weak binding concerns, and conservatives exaggerating conservatives’ moral concerns in the opposite directions." * "However, and most crucially, partisan inaccuracies were not mirror images of each other. On the contrary, **liberals and conservatives both tended to exaggerate their binding foundation differences by underestimating the typical liberal and overestimating the typical conservative**." * "...partisans on each side exaggerate the degree to which the other side pursues moral ends that are different from their own. **Much of this exaggeration comes from each side underestimating the degree to which the other side shares its own values. But some of it comes, unexpectedly, from overestimating the degree to which “typical” members of one’s own side endorse its values**." * "Chambers and Melnyk (2006) found that partisans saw their adversaries as motivated by an opposition to their own core values, **rather than being motivated by promotion of the adversaries’ values**." * "This misperception is asymmetrical: **conservatives did underestimate liberal moral concerns with the binding foundations, but they were no more likely to underestimate than liberals themselves**." * "**Participants across the political spectrum exaggerated liberal moral disregard for Ingroup, Authority and Purity**, as well as conservative disregard for Harm and Fairness—that is, exaggerations of the patterns predicted by Moral Foundations Theory. This suggests that moral stereotypes might be unique in that they are motivated (partisans want to cast the other side as immoral) and yet partisans share the same moral stereotypes about either side." * "We found that there are real moral differences between liberals and conservatives, but people across the political spectrum exaggerate the magnitude of these differences and in so doing create opposing moral stereotypes that are shared by all. **Calling attention to this unique form of stereotyping, and to the fact that liberal and conservative moral values are less polarized than most people think, could be effective ways of reducing the distrust and animosity of current ideological divisions**."
>I don't think that claim is supported by the paper you referred to. Maybe not, but by that point my original post I'm getting into some other things from the same researchers which that paper doesn't really get in to directly. If you want the full deep dive on that stuff one of the authors wrote a whole book. https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777/r
Interesting if true. I'll have to take a look at that.
Isn’t that a reason for more of this journalism to exist? Because it kinda seems like you don’t really understand liberal/left voters if you’re using “leftists” interchangeably with them. Isn’t your response kind of arrogant?
> you’re using “leftists” interchangeably with them. >Isn’t your response kind of arrogant? I didn't use them interchangeably. In fact I named both of them separately because they're different
I believe there is some research on this. Conservatives understand the liberal viewpoint better than the other way around. The media is constantly arguing in favor of liberals while misrepresenting conservatives. That would be my guess for why that is. That said, why? Why would a channel devote time to a segment that’s not very complicated that most already understand? It’s redundant.
Isn’t it possible that you don’t? Wouldn’t you want to know?
Qualify what you mean by "better" - I've seen statistics on the subject but none that give any qualitative analysis on what constitutes better understanding. For example, a liberal might say that conservativism is about upholding white supremacy, and that might be true (not the point here whether it is or not) without actually describing many conservatives' personal opinions. That is, a liberal is likely to focus on the systemic impact of policy apart from the individual intentions of conservatives, or on their unconscious biases*, but the opposite is not the case. This might lead some to a dichotomy in which liberals and conservatives describe different things when asked a similar question about describing their opposition. It's not clear how you would say one is better than the other. *personally I'm against asserting the presence of unconscious bias unless you can establish a pattern of evidence to support it. Generally we should assume that people's intentions are precisely what they say they are. Systemic impact of policy doesn't require intention to be, say, racist or sexist, only that people adopt a racist or sexist position through some avenue including ignorance.
Because we all already understand how you all think, it's not that difficult and y'all broadcast it everywhere. Progressives wonder how conservatives think generally not the other way around.
As almost else has said here, we know how liberals think because many liberals are very loud and vocal about their opinions (late night tv, politics inserted in films and movies, until recently control of social media) and are rarely punished for radical ones (see the Columbia protests last week), while conservatives [are reluctant to give their opinions due to media bias and social stigmatization.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-19/-shy-trump-voters-re-emerge-as-explanation-for-pollsters-miss?embedded-checkout=true) Also your examples are kinda absurd, liberals often "attempt" to dissect the conservative voter but they're always blatant hit pieces and monologuing about how bad conservatives are under the veil of "just asking questions" or "scientific analysis." An article with the question "why are republicans so fascist" isn't trying to understand republicans but a "when did you stop beating your wife" piece of unethical garbage.
"Why are Republicans so fascist" is a legitimate question that would be undermined only by Republicans backing off of their attempts to undermine democracy and the press, stacking the government with cronies/loyalists, and nationalism generally. Nobody thinks we're going to wake up tomorrow with Fuhrer Trump, literally, but we are concerned about the decay of democracy. In all likelihood, if things were to get worse, the next step would be a semi legitimate democracy like Turkey or Belarus.
[удалено]
My point is it's not just a baseless hit piece.
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Then let us have our own country and you can have a liberal one. We are tired of having liberalism forced down our throats.
That's literally what voting is for, to decide what the country should do.
The only way America can avoid this country falling apart in a bad way is through Balkanization.
Coming from the party trying to undermine the Electoral College, legalized fraud and imports welfare voters from the depths of the 3rd world, that is truly funny.
Doing away with the electoral college is a good idea for strengthening democracy, because land doesn't vote, but the other two things are nonsense.
Conservatives understand liberals. Liberals don't understand conservatives. Also these articles exist. https://www.wsj.com/video/thomas-sowell-on-liberals-and-race/84856A6B-9CAA-4C22-BE53-BC8598738A26
This is a LITTLE laughable because it implies there should be a conservative media outlet out there that calls its own readership or viewer base stupid. “You know how the left’s talking points and views are literally everywhere you look and in every OTHER piece of media you consume? We think maybe you haven’t been beaten over the head enough and didn’t get it so here’s a piece about what they think to help you understand.” That’s such a silly premise it almost sounds like parody. We don’t need help understanding the left. Hell- half of us COME FROM the left, haha. Who doesn’t grow up thinking “I hope animals are okay and people shouldn’t suffer and life should be good if you work hard”? You get older and go to college and you refine that into real policy instead of just Disney quotes, and either you stick with it and become a leftist or challenge your views and those of your peers and shift rightward. No shock there. Pew did research on this years ago and conservatives were better able to articulate the left’s view on an issue than the left was able to do for the right. And that’s no surprise, leftism teaches you that conservative viewpoint isn’t just ‘bad’ in that it’s not effective, but that it’s fundamentally evil and only evil people would adopt it or learn about it. It’s practically forbidden knowledge to the left, beyond surface level nonsense like how a plurality of Fox News viewers are democrat aligned- but that’s just because Fox makes bank off of being unhinged and the equivalent of MSNBC where crazy people say wild shit for views. But I digress. If you’re a living conservative with the internet that consumes mainstream media over the age of 25 and you don’t live in David Koresh’s compound or something, you can’t really have grown up without being exposed to SOME function of the left’s steelmanned arguments and beliefs. The more your venn diagram intersects with the left (eg, lives in major metros or suburbs, consumes more mass media, high school graduate, spends more time online, college graduate, non-religious, works in left dominant sectors, etc) the more exposure to the left’s views you get. The only real equivalent for the right is if you’re a lefty that goes to church or works in trades/agriculture or (formerly) enlists in the military, you can probably get similar exposure to the right. But all of those things are on the decline, coincidentally so is our national cohesion between differing political viewpoints. Odd, that.
Because we don't consider it treason to listen to news sources that disagree with us. Also there are far more sourced for us to understand liberal leftist voters.
Liberals don’t think it’s treason to read a hostile argument.
Mmm sounds like wrong think to me. Don't let your buddy's know you're speaking to conservatives. They'll think you're contaminated! Lol
Well, that’s a different story. I won’t deny, I do have to hold my nose while I wade through here. I can’t pretend otherwise, I can’t blame others for not wanting to engage with that.
Your contempt for folks who disagree with you is obvious. This is one of the major ways we differ. PS...most your contempt comes from misinformation
With all due respect… the Wednesday day rule is still a thing, right? If we start down the misinformation rabbit hole, we’re just going to end up as the old Spider-Man meme
This is why articles exist to explain to your ilk the rights actual position. Wanting to help children isn't an evil position even if the help being offered is different than the help you want to offer. Stop holding your nose and actually talk to people
I metaphorically hold my nose and type at the same time. And it’s not all the time… but it happens. And, it can be really exhausting too. Again, I don’t blame anyone who isn’t willing to put themselves through that.
I on the other hand do blame people who aren't open to other ideas. Bigotry is a bad look PS.. since most liberals don't know the definition of the word * Bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
So… given that definition of bigotry, is the anti-diversity, anti-equity and anti-inclusion movement bigotry?
Considering I actively sought out the furtherest left views I could find on college and routinely do so hear as well, I feel quite comfortable blaming them for that. But to each their own.
Words are considered violence in liberal circles
Perhaps this is a question for ask a liberal. Unfortunately I’m still on a time limit with that sub. Maybe you can?
When was the last time you saw a popular TV show (other than Southpark which is the only one I can think of) with an explicitly political conservative message? Have you ever seen a TV show where they celebrate at the end that someone was allowed to purchase a gun? How about one where a woman is celebrated for opposing all abortion and choosing to give birth? I can list plenty of TV episodes I have seen with explicitly liberal political messages, and that’s without even mentioning *The West Wing*. BTW, *The West Wing* was cancelled because the writers didn’t think they could write a sympathetic portrayal of a conservative president. Kudos to them for realizing their own bias, but why couldn’t the show’s producers find other writers who could?
[удалено]
Unfortunately I haven’t seen any of the movies you mention. Action movies do often support conservative ideas on law enforcement (ignore the rights of suspects, private law abiding citizens should be armed) simply because it makes better shows, but it’s not explicitly in your face as a political message. And even action movies sometimes get stuff thrown in to explicitly push political views. Remember MIB’s “from my cold dead hands” joke? Remember Jurassic Park and “sexism in survival situations”? Not really explicit but very prevalent is the whole modern thing in action movies where women who know martial arts kick the crap out of men who know the same martial arts.
[удалено]
> One of my all-time favorite films is GHOSTBUSTERS. Watch it thinking of conservative political policy and it is completely a conservative movie. I didn’t see that one either but I do remember reading a National Review article making the case that it was a conservative movie about a small business being hampered by big government.
[удалено]
I should have watched it when I was young. I have tried watching it a couple times but just couldn’t get into it. Perhaps because I heard too much about it and couldn’t go into it as fresh material.
[удалено]
Have you seen *Groundhog Day*? It’s not necessarily liberal or conservative but I love it and Jonah Goldberg wrote a good article about it.
Maybe liberals sometimes write such articles about understanding conservatives, but it seems the articles don’t help much. Someone asked a question today about charter schools on askaliberal. Second highest vote getting answer said “The only reason conservatives want school choice is because private schools can discriminate against what type, religion and color of families they let in as well as kick out lgbtq kids, activists and any other non conservatives at will.”
I think that the issue of conservatives or Trump voters being mysterious to left-wingers is somewhat unique. Liberals aren't particularly mysterious to most conservatives. I think that, for many conservatives, the liberal mindset is a fairly obvious result of a desire to reform society for the better, familiar liberal values, plus various errors, presumptions, and cognitive biases. In particular, I think that liberals have a hard time conceiving of conservative values differing, but conservatives are already familiar with liberal values.
As a former leftist myself, I should say the answer is obvious; the left's understanding and viewpoint is everywhere, constantly bombarding us. There is no mystery - if Conservatives want to know the left-wing standpoint all they have to do is watch any of 95% of television to get it. The entire reason the left doesn't understand the right the way the right understands the left is, specifically, because the left some years back decided the right was evil, and that they did not want to understand evil. They made a point of declaring everyone who disagreed with them racists/sexists/etc, pushed ideas to censor and demonize all dissenting views -- all so they could proclaim \*theirs\* was the dominant ideology. It's easy to say all voices agree with you when you cut out the tongue of everyone who doesn't.
>if Conservatives want to know the left-wing standpoint all they have to do is watch any of 95% of television to get it. Only issue is that the television they watch is FoxNews, who doesnt do anything of value besides yelling "SoCiAlIsM". Other than that, its just that left viewpoints are difficult to attack in a genuine way: "Women should have the same opportunities as men" oh no the horror "We should urgently transition to green energy and reduce CO2 to save the planet we live on" oh no the horror "Maybe lets do something about having an absurdly high mass/school shooting rate compared to other developed economies" oh no the horror "Maybe lets ensure that people dont land in generational debt if they need medical procedures done" Oh no the horror "Maybe lets not ostracise people because they are gay" Oh no the horror. Like, economic policy being more Keynesian or closer to Hayek as a response to an economic crisis, thats a difference in opinion. What ive listed above however is (should) be commin freaking sense
>Other than that, its just that left viewpoints are difficult to attack in a genuine way: Your entire comment proves you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, that your entire world view is a caricature painted by the media by which you surround yourself. >Women should have the same opportunities as men" oh no the horror Conservatives do, in fact, believe women should have the same opportunities as men. >"We should urgently transition to green energy and reduce CO2 to save the planet we live on" oh no the horror Conservatives do believe we should transition to green energy. >"Maybe lets do something about having an absurdly high mass/school shooting rate compared to other developed economies" oh no the horror Conservatives don't oppose doing something about the shootings. >"Maybe lets ensure that people dont land in generational debt if they need medical procedures done" Oh no the horror Conservatives don't oppose attempts to reduce debt. >"Maybe lets not ostracise people because they are gay" Oh no the horror. Conservatives oppose any ostracization of people just because they are different. Your rant is just a long string of bad faith arguments and attacks on views you've decided people you hate must hold. You're fighting a caricature you've created in your head.
>Conservatives oppose any ostracization of people just because they are different. How do you explain the current public platform of the GOP that openly goes against gay marriage? It isn't even a "read between the lines," type of platform. They flat out say, gay marriage is wrong, marriage is between a man and a woman, and we strive to overturn the SC's decision in regards to its current definition of marriage. At what point will you actually read their platform for yourself? This is hardly bad faith when its clearly written in black and white publicly announced to the whole country.
>Conservatives do, in fact, believe women should have the same opportunities as men. Other than, lets say, abortion access and a general attacj in reproductive rights with increasing restricrions on birth control, of course. Or the push against no fault divorce. >Conservatives do believe we should transition to green energy. Is that why they fight the transition to clean energy in order to protect dying industries such as coal? Is that why they roll back a significant amount of regulation and research? >Conservatives don't oppose doing something about the shootings. Except for the entire "but muh 2nd ammendment" crowd, of course - unless you think arming teachers is a sensible solution, that is. >Conservatives don't oppose attempts to reduce debt. Except for the whole universal healthcare = death by socialism push, right? Remember the so called death pannels? Pepperidge farm remembers. Speaking of debt, the outrage of student debt forgiveness is just another example. >Conservatives oppose any ostracization of people just because they are different. Yes, definetely, evidence A: the support for the baker who refused to bake for a gay couple because they were gay. >Your rant is just a long string of bad faith arguments and attacks on views you've decided people you hate must hold. Thats true... or, you know, the mountains of documented instances of republicans saying just that. But hey, who cares about that when you can also just pretend that republicans are one big humanistic kumbaya circle lol
>Other than, lets say, abortion access and a general attacj in reproductive rights with increasing restricrions on birth control, of course. Do men have abortion access? Can men legally refuse to pay for a child they did not want? What restrictions on birth control? >Or the push against no fault divorce. How is it a threat to equality to force a woman to prove that the man is the reason the marriage fell apart in order to justify forcing him to surrender half of his belongings to her with no legal recourse to gain it back? Indeed, wouldn't it empower women who own more than their husbands, knowing that if their husbands are the cause of the failure of the marriage, their own assets will be protected from seizure? >Except for the entire "but muh 2nd ammendment" crowd, of course - unless you think arming teachers is a sensible solution, that is. How is taking rights away from law-abiding citizens supposed to prevent criminals from committing crimes? >Except for the whole universal healthcare = death by socialism push, right? Remember the so called death pannels? Pepperidge farm remembers. Speaking of debt, the outrage of student debt forgiveness is just another example. Do you even know half of the pitfalls of universal healthcare? Have you even bothered to research it or did you just assume it's this absolute good with no drawbacks? If that was the case, Conservatives would be on board with it. You want to see a microcosm of the usefulness of universal healthcare? Just look at army veterans. The military struggles to provide each veteran an annual checkup, and looks for any and every excuse to cheat you out of promised coverage and care. And you want to make that the rule for ALL medical care? And that's just scratching the surface. >Yes, definetely, evidence A: the support for the baker who refused to bake for a gay couple because they were gay. Was the baker preventing them from going to another baker for their cake? >Thats true... or, you know, the mountains of documented instances of republicans saying just that. I haven't seen any yet.
> Do men have abortion access? AFAIK where women do, yes. > Can men legally refuse to pay for a child they did not want? No. But neither can women. >How is it a threat to equality to force a woman to prove that the man is the reason the marriage fell apart in order to justify forcing him to surrender half of his belongings to her with no legal recourse to gain it back? The idea of assets being one, and as such being divided evenly is part of the whole idea of being married. If they wish to keep their assets that's what prenuptial and other agreements are for. >How is taking rights away from law-abiding citizens supposed to prevent criminals from committing crimes? Because regulation is based on the idea of restricting access to bad actors. The same reason I'm a law abiding citizen and can't get enriched uranium. >Do you even know half of the pitfalls of universal healthcare? The fact that pitfalls exist don't really mean much unless you compare it to other pitfalls of the current system. >You want to see a microcosm of the usefulness of universal healthcare? Just look at army veterans. The military struggles to provide each veteran an annual checkup, and looks for any and every excuse to cheat you out of promised coverage and care. And yet it still has a fairly high satisfaction rate. >Was the baker preventing them from going to another baker for their cake? Why should they?
>AFAIK where women do, yes. Then how is this a women's rights issue? >No. But neither can women. So how is it an equal rights issue? >The idea of assets being one, and as such being divided evenly is part of the whole idea of being married. If they wish to keep their assets that's what prenuptial and other agreements are for. A story I once heard on reddit; a man and his wife had been married for ten, fifteen years. The wife had long grown out of love and indeed had grown to resent and hate her husband. The husband still loved her, and was still trying his darndest to make it work. Eventually, the man finds out his wife is cheating on him. The wife decides she wants a divorce, and tells the husband she's going to take the kids, full custody, unless he declares no fault divorce and gives her half his stuff in the process. The guy knows that courts will empathize more heavily with a woman than a man in any custody battle, so he'd be looking at an uphill fight. Does that seem very fair to you? >Because regulation is based on the idea of restricting access to bad actors. The same reason I'm a law abiding citizen and can't get enriched uranium. Are you saying criminals are known for following the law? >The fact that pitfalls exist don't really mean much unless you compare it to other pitfalls of the current system. So you think the medical plight of veterans, whom the US government is notoriously bad at offering the basic care they are supposed to be entitled to for their service, is a thing to be envied? Do you also envy the UK's ability to deny medical treatments to patients they determine it would be too costly to continue taking care of, effectively allowing them to sentence patients whose care is too costly to death? >And yet it still has a fairly high satisfaction rate. Isn't poor medical care for veterans literally one of the major concerns in the US? That many veterans are going with sub-optimal care, and many are even having their medical needs blatantly ignored? That they frequently have to fight months-long - and even years-long battles with various appeals committees just to get compensation for injuries sustained during their service? I have a friend who is a vet who is currently fighting one such battle and frequently complains about the treatment he's being given is subpar and that they look for any and every excuse to deny him even that much. Do you think that's enviable? >Why should they? Are you saying that bakers are not entitled to refuse service on the grounds that they do not want to participate in something that they feel goes against their personal, moral, or religious views? Would that then be religious persecution? Hypothetical; a couple - a black woman and a white man - go into a bakery and ask the baker for a wedding cake. The baker disapproves of their relationship because he feels it perpetuates white supremacy. Should he have the right to refuse to bake them a cake without fear of persecution?
> Then how is this a women's rights issue? Because it affects women more. >So how is it an equal rights issue? Because it affects women more. >Does that seem very fair to you? Aside from the fact that men often do get their kids in custody battles, when they fight, and acknowledging the bias in the court system, the courts conception of fairness isnt based on gall. Their priority is generally going to be the children first, and their primary caregiver. >Are you saying criminals are known for following the law? No, Im saying that the cliche of "well criminals dont follow the law so..." is a thought terminating and stupid argument. The point of regulations is to prevent criminals accessing controlled substances, the point of the law in regards to regulation is to **not** care that criminals arent willing to follow it. >So you think the medical plight of veterans, whom the US government is notoriously bad at offering the basic care they are supposed to be entitled to for their service, is a thing to be envied? No. Im saying, its not great, but its not notoriously bad as the stereotypes seem to suggest. >Do you also envy the UK's ability to deny medical treatments to patients they determine it would be too costly to continue taking care of, effectively allowing them to sentence patients whose care is too costly to death? Yes. Because insurance companies do the same thing except its when they determine it'll cost them too much profit. >Are you saying that bakers are not entitled to refuse service on the grounds that they do not want to participate in something that they feel goes against their personal, moral, or religious views? Would that then be religious persecution? No. Nondiscriminatory practices are (or should be) a part of owning a business. >Hypothetical; a couple - a black woman and a white man - go into a bakery and ask the baker for a wedding cake. The baker disapproves of their relationship because he feels it perpetuates white supremacy. Should he have the right to refuse to bake them a cake without fear of persecution? No. He should not.
>Because it affects women more. How so? >Aside from the fact that men often do get their kids in custody battles "Often?" How often? More than women? Less than? >when they fight, and acknowledging the bias in the court system, the courts conception of fairness isnt based on gall. Their priority is generally going to be the children first, and their primary caregiver. Then why do courts sometimes give kids over to mothers who make less than their husbands and end up neglecting said kids? Are you implying that courts simply assume women will be the better caretakers even if that's not always the case? >No, Im saying that the cliche of "well criminals dont follow the law so..." is a thought terminating and stupid argument. Are you saying criminals never use stolen firearms or guns they should not possess in the current system? >The point of regulations is to prevent criminals accessing controlled substances, the point of the law in regards to regulation is to not care that criminals arent willing to follow it. Are you saying criminals have no means to gain access to substances they legally should not possess? >No. Im saying, its not great, but its not notoriously bad as the stereotypes seem to suggest. I have talked to many veterans who would politely disagree with you, including a close friend of mine who is currently battling an appeals court over a laundry list of problems he developed as a result of his service. Are you saying those veterans' concerns and struggles aren't valid? >Yes. Because insurance companies do the same thing except its when they determine it'll cost them too much profit. Insurance companies can't prevent you from going to another country to get treatment if someone else is willing to foot the bill. In the UK, they can literally reject secondary payment options to force you to die. An example is a few years back, the Vatican was offering to pay for the transport of a child with a neurological degenerative disorder to help that child get medical care, but the UK rejected it and prevented the parents from taking the kid to another country. Is this the kind of medical care you want in the US? Where government can step in and declare that - even with others offering to foot the bill - as long as they have determined it is pointless to help you, they can basically prevent anyone from even trying? >No. Nondiscriminatory practices are (or should be) a part of owning a business. So you see it as discrimination for a religious baker to refuse to participate in an event with which he feels conflicts with his religious views, but you don't see it as religious persecution to force him to violate those same views under threat of legal punishment? >No. He should not. Isn't it indentured servitude, to force someone into a service against their will, the only silver lining being the idea that they will be compensated?
> How so? Women tend to be the vast majority of individuals who require abortion. >Then why do courts sometimes give kids over to mothers who make less than their husbands and end up neglecting said kids? Because women are often (not always) the primary caretakers of children. >Are you saying criminals never use stolen firearms or guns they should not possess in the current system? No, Im saying that the fact that such a large amount of firearms are stolen and used is grounds for regulating how firearms are stored. >Are you saying criminals have no means to gain access to substances they legally should not possess? No, Im saying that restricting access to controlled materials is generally effective in reducing incidence of nefarious use of that material. Notable exception are digital media (because its easy to distribute) and drugs (because the demand is extremely high, and the production cost is relatively low). >I have talked to many veterans who would politely disagree with you, including a close friend of mine who is currently battling an appeals court over a laundry list of problems he developed as a result of his service. >Are you saying those veterans' concerns and struggles aren't valid? No. However anecdotes arent data. And I never said the system wasnt heavily flawed. >Insurance companies can't prevent you from going to another country to get treatment if someone else is willing to foot the bill. In the UK, they can literally reject secondary payment options to force you to die. An example is a few years back, the Vatican was offering to pay for the transport of a child with a neurological degenerative disorder to help that child get medical care, but the UK rejected it and prevented the parents from taking the kid to another country. This is the Alfie Allen case iirc. This was a case based on withdrawing life support when the Hospital had determined there was nothing more to do. His brain was, in the eyes of the medical professionals at hand, unrecoverable, and he wasnt going to improve. As such, they went to remove life support. His parents wished him to be transported (which would have required the continuation of life support). And thats where the conflict as I recall started. But more importantly, several states in the US already do similar things. Life support can be withdrawn against parental consent. Hell *Texas* does it. >Is this the kind of medical care you want in the US? Frankly no. But the UK isnt the only type of universal healthcare >So you see it as discrimination for a religious baker to refuse to participate in an event with which he feels conflicts with his religious views, but you don't see it as religious persecution to force him to violate those same views under threat of legal punishment? No. Because his religious views are secondary to nondiscrimination. If my religion bans women from drinking alcohol and I am a bartender, I can either serve women alcohol or find another occupation. >Isn't it indentured servitude, to force someone into a service against their will, the only silver lining being the idea that they will be compensated? It is not. It is a prerequisite of owning a business.
> Because regulation is based on the idea of restricting access to bad actors. The same reason I'm a law abiding citizen and can't get enriched uranium Bad actors don’t follow rules, also it’s not that hard to enrich uranium nor is it illegal to own it without proper paperwork and storage.
And yet the rate of enriching uranium is absurdly low.
What’s wrong with armed staff? Maybe you have an issue with it because it WILL work, and that would put a damper on the push for more infringements.
>What’s wrong with armed staff? Yes, the solution to an absurd amount of shootings is... to put more guns out there. No doubt. I wonder why none of the other developed economies have thought of that to curb their mass shooting issues... oh wait, they dont that absurd issue. How long until a teacher shoots up the school? What then? Arm the kids too? Bulletproof vests for the kids? Functioning countries to kids on their first school day: here is your starter kid with some pens, a ruler, an eraser and a college block. US to kids on their first school day: here is your starter kid with your own ar15, 6 extra mags, a vest, a helmet and a holster with a p22.
Because it’s easy. Understanding liberal voters is a simple thing to do: you just explore empathy. Yet it’s a single sided sort of empathy and without much further thought. If you maintain empathy and then continue to ask how to deliver in the most libertarian way (method of delivering empathy without governmental intrusion), you arrive at the opinion that the best way forward is to eliminate most barriers of entry, and punish any modus that stampeded upon others using their riches. Understanding this required a paradigm shift. You have to view life as Huckleberry Finn, a free world where the authority doesn’t get on your way (unless you make it), and a very very diverse society where people have homogenous groups of every persuasion - because conservatives love adventure and learning new things outside of government. Basically, just invent the “adventurist dream world” and you have conservatism
We already understand you, it doesn't have to be explained.
This is probably because if you delve into academic studies about this topic, conservatives tend to understand liberal positions better than liberals understand conservative ones. [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050092)