594

(Not mine, just sharing)

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 39 points 8 months ago

That overlap is extremely conservative.

[-] yannic@lemmy.ca 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, we need another circle here for people who are socially conservative. There are pro-life voters who wouldn't identify with any of these positions, leading me to label them anything but conservative.

It's almost as if people aren't as one-dimensional as some voting systems.

[-] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Hey that doesn't feed the narrative to hate "others" by demonizing and homogenizing groups.

[-] Westcoastdg@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

Can you define socially conservative? In my experience, that includes people who believe "races" should be segregated

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Typically (in the US at least) the term "socially conservative" is used to specify conservatism on social (usually domestic) issues, as opposed to other areas like foreign policy, economy, or some other broad subject of government.

Within that framework, you'll usually see "social conservatives" holding views that are often considered "family values" positions (for better or for worse), and usually are primarily concerned with subjects surrounding the day to day lives of the individuals within society.

These positions are often closely tied to personally held beliefs on the ways that society overall should look and act, and as such are frequently informed by religious beliefs (which tend to focus on the same topics). Such issues include: abortion (with social conservatives tending to be pro-life to some degree), LGBTQ rights (typically anti-marriage equality, against recognition of trans gendering, and any and all depictions of non-cishet lives in any books, movies, etc. especially those marketed toward children), public school curricula (if anyone is talking about banking books, it's likely social conservatives), the role of religion in schools and other official places (frequently they're very much in favor of prayer in schools...so long as it's Christian prayer... American social conservatives would very likely blow a fuse if their kid's school were to have prayer times for their Muslim students), content and conduct deemed 'offensive' (profanity in songs, violence in video games, etc.), sex and nudity, censorship, etc.

Simply put, they're the "Won't someone think of the children!" people who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

[-] stebo02@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

in multiple ways yes

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)
[-] perishthethought@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

Life is full of mysteries but this is one I just will never get. How are they able to "lose the thread" so badly?

[-] OpenStars@startrek.website 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's literally brainwashing techniques: if you repeat something often enough from an "authoritative" source then the information bypasses logical skepticism and many (more than half) of people just accept it as truthful.

It's a great adaptation for energy savings actually - e.g. engineers MUST use this principle on a daily basis when working in a team environment, or else nothing would ever get done. Even scientists whose literal job is to question EVERYTHING don't re-examine every single precept every single time (is this water that I am adding now? okay now, I am moving my right hand, but is it really MY hand, in the grand scheme of things?:-P oh no, the thing I just picked up, a second ago, is it still the same thing now?).

i.e. active disinformation is extremely destructive, and most people today seem to have few defenses against it. Especially when religion is co-opted as the delivery mechanism.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Many people truly do not understand how correct George Carlin was when he said, "the average person is pretty dumb...".

[-] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

Thing is, not all these people have less than two braincells to rub together. It's like flat earther's. Not all of them are stupid people. Maybe just never got taught critical thinking until they'd already been indoctrinated in some religion (evangelical Christianity usually, but not always.) Or grew up before the internet, and so fell into the echo chamber trap. Or their parents only watch Faux News and so that's what they watch.

Calling all these people stupid isn't really fair. I know stupid people who think all that shit is ridiculous.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No, it is exceptionally fair. Is someone who could do better but chooses not to also being stupid?

This is mortality. One mistake can cost you a leg or a life in something as common as an auto accident. Why do you want to make excuses for people who are choosing to make it worse?

[-] randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

Life means something else when you're a death worshiper.

[-] Robotunicorn@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

Can we just start calling it what it is? “Pro-birth” The right doesn’t care what happens to you after that…hence the outside circles…and healthcare, food assistance, shelter, etc.

[-] current@lemmy.ml 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think "anti-choice" is adequate, gets the point across in a different way

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 months ago

Especially since “pro-choice” by no stretch means “anti-life”.

[-] xenoclast@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I agree wholeheartedly. I think this is an excellent phrase that describes what these people are trying to do on many levels.

The point of all of these propaganda campaigns, is take control from others and leave themselves in charge.

It centers on making everyone think the same as them.

So on every level they want to remove your choices

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 16 points 8 months ago

If they were pro birth they'd be providing, if nothing else, pre and post natal healthcare as well as paid parental leave. But they don't and deaths related to births are on the rise.

[-] NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

"Pro-suffering"?

[-] Robotunicorn@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Yea, they were never going to pay for any of that or help in any way.

[-] drmeanfeel@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Birth can mean a healthy happy life afterward (they wouldn't want that), so more like "pro-plentiful-cheap-labor-supply"

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Apologist perspective: all three have a common thread, individual rights (assumption: fetuses have rights).

But even that breaks down when you consider social policies like same sex marriage and recreational drugs.

Wait, the death penalty violates that explanation. Well... I tried.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

I oppose gun control.

I favor the death penalty, but not in the overwhelming majority of the cases that it's actually used in. Specifically, I think that it should probably be limited to people that kill for pathological reasons, people that would kill more people if they were ever able to get out of prison, people like Ed Kemper, Gary Ridgeway, Dylan Roof, etc.

I'm very solidly pro-choice, and got sterilized 20 years ago just to be sure.

I strongly favor infection control and deeply oppose lies ("misinformation") about vaccination, etc., but concede that individuals should have the choice to wear masks, get vaccinated, etc. or not, but that the gov't has a compelling interest in not allowing them into gov't buildings (schools, courts, etc.) if they refuse, and businesses have the absolute right to deny them service on the basis of their choice.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

There are a not-insignificant number of liberal gun owners.

[-] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Opposing gun control and owning a gun aren't synonymous. Is that hard to understand?

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Opposing gun control isn't one big bucket. There are a lot of nonsense policies that play into public fears and are unlikely to have any meaningful impact to the actual problems, yet limit individual freedom for law abiding citizens. It's possible to support sensible gun control, and oppose certain heart-string legislation.

[-] THE_MASTERMIND@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago

I am the pro gun guy but i find the other groups in the diagram repulsive. Like would you be more happy if only pigs and shills had guns let me tell you i live in a country like that and it isn't even remotly good.

[-] Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Being someone living in the Netherlands, I live in a country where pigs and shills have guns, and it's great here!

[-] Robotunicorn@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

As a “pro gun guy”, I’d be curious on your thoughts about compromise. Allow people to get a gun, but only after taking a gun safety-type course. Like drivers training…you’re essentially getting into a “weapon” that has the potential to kill someone so you have to learn the law and how to drive safely. Same should go for using a gun.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

If you go left far enough you oppose gun control and aren't overlapping any of those circles...

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

I just like guns. I dont give a fuck about convicts or covid or some deadbeat's fetus. Do whatever the fuck you want but leave my dakka alone.

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 6 points 8 months ago
[-] Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Why, have my guns ever harmed you?

Also, why are you rejecting all the common ground you two share? You're going to turn off people from conversing with you if you attach to the ONE thing you disagree with. Do you want to live life in a hive mind, and have no one oppose your views whatsoever?

[-] GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network 1 points 8 months ago

Don't hurt yourself reaching

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Gotta love the amgy pro gun liberals and leftists who keep trying to theory their way out of the fact that going for a gun from a reactionary position just raises the odds you'll die in the exchange.

There is a fucking reason why even castle doctrine states will typically push duty to de-escalate, and why gun license training involves reprimanding wannabe rambos who think charging in with a glock pulled is a good idea if you realize your home has been invaded.

A firearm is NOT a defensive tool, it is a tool designed entirely for the purpose of killing, maiming, and severely injuring, the most you're going to defend yourself from is a wild animal that you caught flinching to charge you.

Also, "An armed minority can't be opressed." is something only an insane person, or a white person on red state public education system brain can say as if we don't live in a country where manifest destiny happened. The Apache didn't surrender after hundreds of years of fighting the Spanish, Mexicans, and finally Americans using just sticks and arrows.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
594 points (94.1% liked)

People Twitter

5213 readers
2119 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS