I don’t think so, because then you’re imagining a world where somebody controls what can or can’t be online. That’s not progressive.
I’m fine with conservative media in theory, but the problem with conservative media these days is just the constant blatant lying.
I think there’s definitely room for conservative voices, like:
- Conserving the environment.
- Putting checks and balances on AI and technology in general
- Maintaining non-harmful cultural traditions (Morris Dancing is cringe, but it should still be around)
- Promoting an emphasis on local community and family rather than individualism fuelling the capitalist system
Even traditions that have been harmful can be recontextualised and maintained and used as a means of teaching, rather than thrown out entirely in the name of progress. People are so drawn to places like Japan (at least partially) because they maintain their traditions and seek to conserve what they have rather than constantly push forward and bulldoze everything old because it’s old. Obviously not everyone believes in the traditions, but they keep them anyway.
Nowadays though? Conservatives have basically tossed all of that in favor of allowing capital to completely bulldoze over traditions and then blaming the ensuing misery on the gays.
I don’t think political conservatism has ever meant caring about conserving heritage and nature. From the inception of the concept in the 18th century to now, it’s always been about conserving (or bringing back) inequality in power and wealth. It was never about preserving nature or protecting other people their way of life. Then and now, the credo of the conservative movement might just as well be “I want rules for thee but not for me”.
Political conservatism definitely has meant conserving heritage and nature, just not in your lifetime. Example: Theodore Roosevelt created America’s national park system. But since at least as far back as 1980 conservatism has been co-opted by con men as a beard for their own gain. I think the main reason they’ve succeeded is that so many conservatives, although basically good at heart, were brought up with the biblical family model of putting absolute faith in a strong and wise Daddy who looks after them. They want to believe in that so hard because it’s so much a part of who they are, once they identify a Daddy they’ll give him a pass on just about everything. Once you figure out how to become Daddy they’re all yours.
Then what would you call someone who holds those beliefs? The belief that some things ought to be conserved and progress ought to be held back in some circumstances? I would call that conservative in a small c kind of way, as opposed to big c Conservatives that are all about centralised power and handing everything over to big businesses to strip the world clean of anything of value.
Conservators are those that work towards the conservation of things.
Edit: conservation and conservatism are 2 very different things. To work towards conservation of something is not going to be directly tied to political backgrounds: It is not because someone is a socialist or liberal, that they will not want to conserve some things. Everyone will probably have some things (nature, monuments, traditions, …) that they want to conserve for future generations.
Imagine a world where news was balanced and progressives had equal media representation.
looks like cool discussion downwind but why should we even argue about what is “conservative”
you’re interested in conserving resources? you got some canned food in your cubbard? you tried to teach your kid whatever bullshit you thought was important from your folks? BOOM you’re a Filthy Conservative.
I’m interested in conserving the word “cupboard”
damn swear i knew some one on the internet would come after for that
you’re not wrong though
Old Mother Hubbard glares disapprovingly
some individual should explain to her about phonetic spelling and it’s all irrelevant, as long as you understand the context and hopefully the nuance
Really? We would be better after blocking quite the range of views we don’t like?
The douchevoters are really trying to bury you on this but I agree with you. It’s kind of stunning how many people who sincerely believe they’re progressive and enlightened share the conservative faith in a Daddy who will beat up the bad guys for them and keep the bad stuff away.
No, we can block just conservative media, thanks.
No, just the views that are constant lies
Conservatism in the use has nothing to do with actual conservative thoughts, quite the opposite, really. It’s just a cover for the rich to steal from, and control the poor.
Ant conservative media in the use today is just one large stream of lies, lies, lies. Anything to keep you distracted from the fact that they’re stealing the coffers empty, anything to keep you so angry about “the others” that you wo t even consider talking to them to realise that you’ve been played
not the views we don’t like, but the ones that cause harm and suffering for western societies.
And where do we draw that line? And why only Western?
And where do we draw that line? And why only Western?
as i said to the previous poster, “i believe neuroscience has the ability to quantify suffering.”
i speak of western cultures because we are so obsessed with individual liberty that we will be the hardest to convince that some censorship in the interest of promoting a healthy society is possible and needed.
And where do we draw that line? And why only Western?
“Ones that cause harm and suffering” is subjective though.
Blocking online content, even ones we don’t like, is a slippery slope
i believe it can be objective. i believe neuroscience has the ability to quantify suffering. i believe if we spent more time studying neuroscience and the health of a society, this could all be feasible.
i agree that censorship of things we ‘don’t like’ is not a society i want to live in. i just think that there are objective answers to what now seems like vague questions.
As in all conservative opinions.
I am so sick of the word conservative. It’s not conservative, it’s fucking regressive. It’s back sliding our society into a world that never really existed in the first place.
It’s not conservative, it’s fucking regressive.
I mean, Liberals aren’t particularly liberal and far too many of the Progressives are barely progressive. Libertarians don’t seem that interested in liberty. Centrists can’t find the center. Plutocrats are immolating their capital. The Meritocrats are unqualified. The Technocrats are incompetent. Only the Fascists seem intent on delivering results consistent with their brand.
The democratic party is run by conservatives that are keeping the liberals and progressives in check. The republican party is so far off the deep end we need a new word for what they are.
I’ve managed to find a few that can describe the Republicans:
- Nazis
- Neo-Nazis
I don’t disagree. The world liberal is wasted on the Democratic party. They’re not liberal. They’re just the only valid opposition to the Nazis. Even if their policies are conservative.
They’re just the only valid opposition to the Nazis.
I think you’re asking “opposition” to do more heavy lifting than it can bear in that sentence.
They’re just the only valid opposition to the Nazis.
They’ve rolled over so fast and so frequently that I’d hardly call them “opposition” without prefixing it with “controlled”.
The most influential force in Democratic Party leadership right now is Bitcoin Banks, ffs. They’re fully rotten.
I say this all the time and somehow people just can’t see it. Who cares what they call themselves. Its what they do and what they want that describes them.
“Conservative” just means “extreme far-right” now.
That’s only if you let it
To me it’s still what Americans consider left
Love how even in this future people still park on the fuckin sidewalks.
Cant change the fact that people suck
How could you ban political speech without some kind of Act under the guise of keeping Kids Safe Online?
Actually holding platforms accountable for hate speech and propagating dangerous misinfo would solve 90% of the problem. Some shitty guy self hosting his Nazi rants was never the problem. It’s a problem when he’s allowed to push his content directly to users unprompted.
Believe it or not people hated minorities and drank bleach before social media, they just weren’t on the front page.
Lemmy is pretty damn close to that there’s only like five conservatives but they are all the same person.
I’d love it if lemmy banned traitors. It should be policy for every server.
And we still don’t ever get along, hahahaha
Nobody hates those who oppose conservatism like other people who oppose conservatism. 🙄
It’s more than that, progressive spaces are bound to have conflict due to the fact that progressiveness is way more abstract than conservativism. Conservativism is about not having change, about things staying as they are, no progress. Progresivism however, you can be moderately progressive, very progressive, radically progressive… You also can be progressive in some aspects but not so much in others, yet you identify as a progressive.
Conservativism champions homogeneity, progressiveness champions diversity. In a diverse environment there are bound to be disagreements.
It is what it is, we just need to be better and reach agreements. All the time.
great response
It’s Gulag for everybody who doesn’t win. You can’t blame lefties for not cooperating. It’s still unfortunate.
Y’all have just made an enemy for life
deleted by creator
Yeah, if it wasn’t for the news in lemmy, I’d assume the world was all sunshine and roses, and everybody was cool like me.
We’re all happy depressed furries optimizing our linux experience on our thinkpads.
deleted by creator
My apologies. I didn’t mean to exclude the catgirls.
I feel left out. I don’t have a Thinkpad. 😩
We can share mine
But you’re a happy depressed furry optimizing your linux experience, and that’s all that matters.
@_@
mesmerized by your name
Yah but there’s also like, 300,000 tankies and they’re ALSO that same person.
No, there’s me AND Steve.
Horseshoe theory is rightfully maligned on the nose, but I’ve had to play the “Leftist diphsit or Redcap troll” game too many times to discount it DX
There’s also “Extreme Centrist Who Will Break Their Own Back doing Acrobatics to Avoid Being Labeled And Now Just are Reflexively Contrarian to Literally Anything and Everything Anyone Says in Public.”
They will also go to the camps.
Camps for centrists, camps for moderates, camps for radicals, camps for everyone not in power. It’s sad.
And Lemmy is a shitshow of “I’m more progressive and left than you, you fascist!” despite being a far left echo chamber.
Ok, so don’t use Lemmy, you see how easy that solution is?
Kinda of cringe that that mushroom gobbling fascist hasn’t been banned already tbh
No fucking joke, the dude is batty.
I can use whatever I want, but thanks :)
Ok, so stop complaining then.
No.
So you’ve created your own problem.
Well, just look at what happened to the Lemmy conservative communities.
It seems like most have been taken over and turned into only satire posts about conservatives; only a few are truly for conservatives, mostly in other federations, not leemmmy.world.
Good. We don’t want conservatives here.
The problem is, we have to live next to them in our daily lives, and they us. Part of the reason why we’re now spinning down the drain as a nation is because everyone retreated to isolated online bubbles instead of talking to their family, friends and neighbors.
What nation?
Exactly the kind “harumph, not ME” attitude I am describing.
Community made us the most successful species on Earth. But we have allowed capital and greed to form systems that pry us apart into echo chambers that are disconnected from the axioms we share and this has festered into a kind of hate so extreme that when someone tries to expose what’s been done to us, it’s attacked as “centerism” at best, or advocacy for making friends with nazis in worst-faith reactionism.
There is nuance in the non-digital world, and avoiding talking to or seeing the thoughts and ideas, no matter how dumb, of the people we’re trained to be phobic of only makes the problem worse.
We have to get off the internet. People who get off the internet are going to be the actual thought leaders and unifiers of tomorrow.
I agree, but the point of my comment wasn’t that my country’s any better because it’s absolutely not. I was mostly just pointing out that on a global platform, it’s odd to say “our nation” without specifying which one
In general, or in left-leaning communities?
Self-built echo chambers and self-censorship seem to hinder our views, especially when it comes to being able to notice populist viewpoints and what the working class views are on politics.
Both.
Conservatives have nothing of value to contribute to discussions. I say that on the basis of having made serious attempts at engagement with them. They are very anti-intellectual and bring down the quality of discussion to quips and shouting matches. BlueMAGA types are similar, but they are at least toned down a few degrees, and importantly, they aren’t openly bigoted and exclusionary. Like, you’re never going to have trans people and MAGA coexisting in the same online spaces and I’d much rather have the former than the latter, as there’s a much higher probability of them saying something worthwhile.
It’s like, imagine two doctors trying to discuss the intricacies of their field in a room where a conspiracy theorist, like, say, Jimmy Dore for example, is listening in for some phrase they can twist around and take out of context and attack them with. That’s what it’s like having conservatives in an online space.
Outside of online spaces, conservatives are largely incompatible with a functioning society, they don’t understand basic concepts needed for the government to function, and their heads are instead filled with a bunch of harmful and objectively wrong ideas. They will fight tooth and nail against their own interests just to stop anyone else from having good things.
On the rare occasions when they accidentally stumble into a correct take, it’s because they’re wrong twice, and it only muddies the waters for people who have a similar take for coherent reasons.
Name one thing that conservatives contribute to any discussion that’s worth listening to.
Conservatives have nothing of value to contribute to discussions.
This is why Trump is in the oval office, and some of you are too full of yourselves to see it.
I say that on the basis of having made serious attempts at engagement with them.
You mean calling them Nazi’s and fascists and telling them they should be murdered because they want to stop illegal immigration didn’t work?! I am SHOCKED.
I think I understand what you are saying, but that is the nature of a society.
We all have our own unique upbringings and experiences that shape us.
Political tribalism helps increase the difficulty of uniting the working class. Divide and conquer is still relevant in our society, especially with identity politics and social issues.
I think it fundamentally goes back to:
It is difficult to have discussions with people that do not share our views or way of thinking.
It takes a lot of time and effort IRL and on forums.
The problem with this sentiment is that you misrepresent the points of contention. This is not a disagreement over people’s preferred pizza toppings, where parties can safely “agree to disagree.” We are talking about positions that pose a clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist. Do you really think this hasn’t been discussed? Do you genuinely think this hasn’t been talked about, debated, argued, demonstrated, illustrated, and experienced ad infinitum for literal decades?
The reason you are being downvoted (and justly so) is that your argument in this case is literally a form of victim-blaming. People being actively harmed, abused, and oppressed are under no obligated whatsoever to try and meet their aggressors in the middle or to concede any part of their existence to them. This disease was festering long before the internet existed. “Echo chambers” have nothing to do with it. It a matter of good versus evil, right versus wrong, liberty versus death. Neither the oppressed mor their defenders will lie down and die because you are inconvenienced by conflict they never wanted.
Divide and conquer strategies work.
I am saying that we need to unite the working class where we agree, not just focus on where we disagree.
The duopoly will always work against the working class while handing out crumbs so as to win some small points.
We must build a rainbow coalition (Black Panther Party) instead of continuing the political tribalism of blue versus red teams (Bloods versus Crips).
That is why I mentioned:
It is difficult to have discussions with people that do not share our views or way of thinking.
It takes a lot of time and effort IRL and on forums.
It takes time and effort to build up a rainbow coalition, but it is possible.
Chris Smalls was able to do it with the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) in Staten Island; instead of talking to people where they disagree, they come together on things that they agree with.
We are talking about positions that pose a clear, real, immediate existential threat to entire groups of people, simply because they exist.
Example 2 of why Trump is in power, and how you guys still don’t get it.
Right, but for some of us, our upbringings and experiences include, “Reading actual works of political theory” while for others it involves, “Watching cable TV.” An ignorant viewpoint is not on an equal level as an informed one.
Of course, uniting the working class is important, but that doesn’t mean falling into “Tailism,” that is, adopting reactionary views to ingratiate ourselves to a reactionary population. The goal is to spread education and knowledge to make the population less reactionary. It is necessary, to a degree, to meet people where they’re at and to accommodate their concerns, but there is a line to be drawn. Engaging in Tailism fractures the left, alienates comrades who will object for legitimate reasons, legitimizes reactionary views, and makes a movement far more susceptible to opportunists, who are only concerned with their own advancement and willing to sell out members of the working class, since, you know, that’s what Tailism is.
If you want to actually build a working class coalition, the most important thing is to practice solidarity. Everyone is part of a minority, in a sense. For instance, whatever job you have, most people aren’t involved in that field. Being a minority in a democracy is inherently precarious, because the majority could take your rights away. Solidarity means an alliance between disparate groups to stand together for mutual defense. But that alliance is broken when you sell out a group for political gain. Not only do you lose that group, but every group in the coalition starts wondering if they’ll be next, and starts worrying about themselves than coming to the defense of others who might be more in the crosshairs. If solidarity breaks down, then how can the working class be united?
Thanks for your comment!
I agree, identity politics and social issues are divide-and-conquer strategies the duopoly uses against the working class.
We need to build a rainbow coalition (Black Panther Party), similar to how Chris Smalls was able to make the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) in Staten Island.
Bringing together the working class on what we agree on instead of focusing on what we don’t agree on.
The main issue comes from people not actually debating in good faith or their arguments boiling down to “I just don’t think people that are different from me should exist.”
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances, but allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
The problem with this is that sites like Reddit, Lemmy, old Twitter, and old (and possibly current) facebook, is that anything that goes against the echo chamber is called “bigotry” or any of the “phobic”'s and is censored, further cementing the echo chamber.
Care to cite an example of an opinion that was rejected? And make sure it’s not something pro-Zionist, pro-ICE, anti-trans, anti-Medicare, or pro-any person who holds those viewpoints. Those stances reject sanctity of human life.
I’d like to own a couple people but the government won’t let me and I keep on getting censored when I say in online.
You guys label “women’s sports is for women” as “anti-trans” though.
Yes, that is a problem when it comes to having discussions with others, especially if political tribalism is heavily involved.
Echo chambers aren’t good sure, just look at the .ml instances,
It seems . ML has an echo chamber problem then.
allowing “free speech” and bigotry isn’t good as well.
It is free speech and our first amendment right; privately owned platforms do like to hinder and censor dissidents, with help from the government.
It has to be consistent because it is always used for one side first, then it is used against the other later on.
I think we have found out that many free speech absolutists are hypocrites and were using it as an excuse to help their profits.
I think Glenn Greenwald is an excellent example of someone with consistency when he shares his views and critiques, especially when you see his background:
Glenn Edward Greenwald is an American journalist, author, and former lawyer. In 1996, Greenwald founded a law firm concentrating on First Amendment litigation.
Glen Greenward is extremely pro-Russia and continues to repeat debunked lies about Ukrainian biolabs.
extremely pro-Russia
repeat debunked lies
This goes back to tribalism within politics and what propaganda apparatus we each prefer to consume on the daily.
I am always going to be highly critical of all governments, oligarchy-controlled media, and politicians.
The status quo is what is fed to the working class, but new media and the internet have helped fight the echo chambers and censorship we are born in; being pro-war and believing everything our governments tell us to believe will be much harder when there are multiple sources of information.
Those other ones are the ones that have five different accounts being ran by the same person.
I think that is the norm on lemmy, though, not just conservative leaning accounts.
I don’t think you’re right but I’d be more then willing to look at any proof you have of that.
Oh, interesting!
What is interesting is your complete lack of proof.
All is well.
Hey there’s one now.
imagine thinking jimmy fucking dore of all people is a “lefty” might as well make a user name ElonMuskIsAJain
It is always funny when people who criticize the status quo (Democrats, Bernie Sanders, AOC) from the left instead of the right are labeled the boogeyman.
Nice try, though.
Dude, you spammed a hit piece about sanders that claimed he doesn’t support universal healthcare.
Now you’re whining about a lack of representation for maga chuds.
I would encourage you to rewatch the video.
It seems you just read the title.
I don’t click on spam.
No surprise there; label everything that is to your left or that goes against your thinking as spam or the boogeyman of your choice.
Self-built echo chambers and self-censorship are not things we should be proud of; they are unhealthy for our society.
You’re not doing anything from the left.
I disagree, but thanks for sharing your views on the matter.
Edit:
- word, sharing
Anyone can just look at any of the cums you moderate or comments you make and make up their own mind.
True.
I make it easy to see what I share and what my thoughts are on politics.
I try to keep and share my views in simple terms so it is easier to understand.
I just look fondly back on the times when there was a slightly higher barrier-to-entry to those that wanted to access and use the internet.
This makes me wonder how many “teenage edgelords” that bought into “the manosphere” would’ve been able to go to such an extreme if they’d been forced to access every website through a shared family computer, in a room that others frequent, the way many Millennials had to do at their age.
Relatively-guaranteed privacy only happened on rare occasions (I came from a large household), and I had to share the one computer with all of my siblings. My parents weren’t the type to go out of their way to monitor my internet activity, but just knowing they or my siblings could appear at any time, look over my shoulder, and ask me what I was looking at, made me think very carefully about what I put on that screen.
We wouldn’t have been able to entrench ourselves 24/7 in toxic muck the way people can today.
I hadn’t thought about it until reading your comment here but I accidentally raised my GenZ kids this way. If I hadn’t done this I never would have seen my eldest heading down the misogynist edgelord path and intervened.
The only decent computer in the house was in the living room, and they had clunky retired elementary school computers in their rooms running Linux and Open Office so they could work on homework (no internet, USB drive to save homework and send from family computer). It wasn’t because I sought to keep them from using the internet privately, it was because we couldn’t really afford better.
August 1993?
Ah yes, the halcyon days when only upper-middle class techbros had access to such beacons of internet liberalism as 4chan and Albino Blacksheep.
Bring back Powerline Blog! Bring back deeply homophobic Starcraft voice chats! Bring back spending 30,000 bitcoins on a pizza! I miss the days of three horny Harvard kids putting together an online Hot-or-Not image ranking of their female peers. I miss Googling “Waffles” and getting John Kerry’s campaign website. I miss downloading an .mp3 of someone reading erotica in a Daffy Duck voice on Napster! You know, when the internet was normal and sophisticated and good.
Retvrn To Tradition!
You’re thinking too modern. We need to go back before Eternal September
Yep, still sounds better than our current enshittification.
I mean at least there wasn’t a subscription for literally everything back then.
You say that like that isn’t better
It isn’t. It’s just older - often past the point of living memory.
The modern era has far more in common with the '00s and '80s and '60s than modern Americans are willing to accept.
When you’re older you’ll understand that mass propaganda campaigns and truth control are worse
Trying to believe this, but I’ve got Chinatown playing in the background and it’s drowning you out.
But sure, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond were winning elections based on facts and logic. Newt Gingrich and George Bush Jr never went on the TV and told lies. Censorship during the War on Drugs and Crime and Terror is a myth. Nobody in America was being poison pilled with red scares and satanic panics before 2016.
We’re talking about the internet
mass propaganda campaigns and truth control are worse
These predate the Internet.
But also, omg the post 9/11 Internet was black pilled to the gills
It’s funny cuz people actually think this way, and don’t realize what a self-own it is.
… can… can we go there?
Someone added that to the PragerU post? Because I can’t imagine PragerU posting a Utopian image with that text. PragerU are worse than Fox “Newz”.
PragerU posted the text, someone added the image.
Have we tried putting them on a boat and sending on to find the next continent? If we did that, I might start celebrating Columbus day!
G’day mate.
Yeah, several times. The colonies of every major recent empire were essentially formed this way. It sounds good on paper, but it ends up just being harborage for conservatism.
Imagine all the people…
