https://lemmy.world/c/conservative https://lemmy.world/c/lgbtq
Seems pervasive and insidious.
https://lemmy.world/c/conservative https://lemmy.world/c/lgbtq
Seems pervasive and insidious.
If you look at the content feed of /c/conservative most of the recent posts seem to be fairly anti-conservative, or at least not very flattering. For example "Almost Twice as Many Republicans Died From COVID Before the Midterms Than Democrats" was just recently posted.
In other words they may be modding both subreddits because they're not actually conservative.
Scroll back to see what they were posting originally, the stuff with the downvotes was nasty. That's why people got together to change that.
You'd think the moderators would be removing the anti-conservative stuff though if they were actually conservative.
Another moderator removed comments of a person that was disagreeing with the posts and I un-removed them and allowed them to continue on, I don't see how you find that to be an issue? If anything that is proper moderation, and the mod that was removing these comments has since been removed
Having people that strongly agree OR disagree with the political beliefs of a communty be the mods of this community is suboptimal at best. If you align the beliefs of the mods with the communities, you get a "positive" feedback loop, making the place more radical as time passes. The opposite will happen if you oppose the beliefs of the mods and the communities. Good mods of political communities will not express their political beliefs. Modding politics is not about liking or disliking opinions and beliefs but more about enforcing agreed upon and sensible rules that don't have to be related to the political topics at times.
To make the example easier to understand, I will use a radical example.
If you let Neo-Nazis that actively take part in the community be mods of a political community, you will ineviteably see a positive trend towards national socialism. Posts that don't align with their beliefs at all get removed, this will increase over time and wheir boundaries will also get stronger with time.
It doesn't even really matter if the community was auth or lib or left or right to begin with.
Good grief, their community list is absolutely bloated, probably an attempt at powermoderating or domain squatting if I had to guess. It is unfortunate that they're modding LGBTQ+ though, they seem to suffer from a case of "enlightened centrism" and that is pretty harmful given today's climate for trans rights. (For context, the post in question is a single panel comic of a trans person dragging a child into an gender affirming care clinic, basically perpetuating the groomer libel of LGBTQ+ people)
@Goathound @Hurts @Izzent Maybe he was over here a long time ago. Went to reddit. Saw all the popular communities and Created all of them. I would signup for another instance, create the community you want. then link everyone. enough people then they will get bigger then the one on lemmy.world instance. Worth a shot
I think they are more concerned about the damage someone running a community in bad faith could do to folks who may be vulnerable and looking for some relief and mental health tips within a safe group, opposed to a conservative liking gay people...
I go to a lot of recovery groups online and having a mod from a pro usage/drug group would be very concerning.
Centrists spits are conservatives who just don't feel comfortable calling themselves that, and in a country where fascism is already on the rise, they're effectively collaborators.
They do seem to be actively posting in a lot of the communities, so maybe it's just someone trying to seed new Lemmies. There's a lot of people that want new communities but also don't want to moderate, so someone like this could be filling an actual gap if they have good intentions.
Yeah people are making so many assumptions about how there is a conflict of interest with moderation in /c/lgbtq while there is literally zero activity in /c/lgbtq. There are so many baseless assumptions being thrown around. People should start posting in /c/lgbtq and if @Hurts proves to be an issue moderating there, he clearly is more than willing to step down as head mod there just like he did at /c/Conservative.
This is correct. I have already passed off ownership of c/conservative, I'm simply just another moderator now. I have also added mods to any of the communities that actually have content (most of them do not without me seeding it). I have not rejected a single request from anyone that reached out to moderate any of the communities (the biggest ones are c/nba, c/nfl, c/baseball, c/pics, and c/news). I was discussing adding someone as a mod on c/news last night before I logged off and one will be up today. I haven't received any requests on c/pics but the volume of posting isn't really unmanageable.
Edit - And anyone wondering WHY I didn't remove posts from the one guy that was posting there, the answer is because I believe the voting system should be allowed to do its thing. All of his posts were heavily downvoted, it shows exactly where the community there or those passing by stood on the posts. I don't believe in overmoderation which Reddit fell victim to and curated those echo chambers by removing content and posts they disagreed with.
Edit 3 - Grammar
Probably creating many communities. Though I agree it is difficult to remain impartial on topics like this.
Yeah, their "moderates" list is huge. I hope that with individual instances having more control here, we don't see quite as many of these absurd thousand-community mods.
The benefit of the fediverse is that if something like that does turn out to be a problem, the server admin can replace mods or we can use a different instance.
Honestly I don't think that's quite it. Switching to a different instance is no different from switching to a new sub: sometimes it's just not realistic. What I think the advantage here is is that Reddit is effectively one instance, and they have no interest in doing any kind of community admin. There will be instances like that here too, but it's not going to be all of them (I suspect not even most)
I'm not sure. They may be a power mod, trying to grab as many communities as possible, they may be trying to infiltrate one of the communities, or they may be some form of a centrist or conservative queer person. One of the good things here is that the mod logs of these sites are open to the public, so we can keep an eye out for unjustified bannings or iffy behavior from this user and move away from their community if needed.
I agree. I think it leads to better accountability and less overall censorship, while still allowing for a healthy level of moderation.
I've defended myself in comment replies but I guess I'll address the post directly as well.
Kind of shitty to wake up and see this and a whole thread shitting on me, when I've done nothing but try to seed and build communities here. Any communities that have gained traction I've gladly accepted new moderators for (see c/nba, c/nfl, c/news, c/baseball), as well as stepped down as the head moderator at c/conservative.
The literal only action I've taken as a moderator at c/conservative before this morning was reapproving comments that were removed for no reason besides disagreeing, and messaging that moderator and telling them that isn't how we will be doing things, which is because I don't intend to ever cultivate an echo chamber. See here to view the message
To automatically assume that I have no LGBTQ+ affiliation or some insidious agenda is nothing short of slanderous and disingenuous. I have already personally stated that I am gay multiple days ago when one of the commentators on c/news attempted to call me out for this. See here for the comment chain.
I have not rejected a single person that has requested to moderate any community that I started/seeded, and have already passed off ownership of one community out of the 5-6 that actually gained a bit of traction. The only thing I'm doing here is attempting to fill this site with content and keep any personal moderator bias' aside whether that is from myself or the people I appoint as moderators within the community. Here is a screenshot of messages I exchanged with a user from c/news yesterday, where I again explicitly state I prefer the posts to come from sources that aren't incredibly biased in either direction.
I have stated in another comment that I am very centrist. I am not passionate towards either of the main US political parties more than the other, and I think that quite frankly makes me more fit than most of the people here to moderate these communities as I won't curate echo chambers.
Starting an entire thread to brigade and witch-hunt someone that is trying to prop this site up and provide content and communities from Reddit to ease the transition is a great way to quickly ruin this site. The fact that an admin at 2am EST intervened on a community because it upset some users for having different views and handpicked a moderator doesn't bode well in my thinking that this site would be any different than Reddit.
I don't the the community is actually conservative, but rather critical of conservatives.
I really hope it's in good faith, cause if it is, that may be a slimmer of hope that conservatives can co-exist amongst LGBTQ+. I'm more of a centrist (no, that does not mean I play the both sides are equally bad or I play both sides, get that out of your heads) and I have a few conservative opinions. This does not mean I agree with the extremism of the U.S. conservatives pushing laws and misinformation to opress LGBTQ+ and other minorities. It's sickening.
What does "conservatism" mean to you? In my opinion there is no functioning definition of it that is safe for LGBTQ coexistence.
I'd argue that the aging gay NIMBY community in San Francisco is an example of being both LGBT and conservative, though they vote almost 100% democrat. I don't think Republicans and queer folks can coexist, given the whole "want to erase anyone not straight from existence" thing. But conservative and queer is definitely a thing.
I didn't say there are no LGBTQ+ people who aren't conservative, I said there is no definition of conservatism that is safe for lgbtq+ people, and also adequately describes conservatism.
There were jews who supported the nazi party. That doesn't mean they didn't get sent to concentration camps.
Conservativism just means not wanting things to change. If you grew up in a society where LGBT rights are already inviolate (such as San Francisco), it's perfectly possible to just want to keep the status quo.
You're mixing up conservativism and the Republican party. The fringe Republicans aren't even conservative - they're reactionary. They want to go backwards.
Think of a spectrum:
Revolutionary - progressive - conservative - reactionary.
That is indeed what conservatives declare, but it's a nonsensical position and doesn't describe any conservative stance ever. Conservatives always have plenty of things they're fine with changing, and the line between what's okay to change and what they are not is where the actual definition comes in. It's also always regressive, because it always includes opposition to changes that they perceive as being "new" when in fact they are not (such as, topically, drag shows).
This is why I asked how you define it, though.
Should mean secular small government and fiscal responsibility, but that party never existed.
"fiscal responsibility" never really existed from a government standpoint, macroeconomics has never made that much sense, but I'll grant that "avoid deficit spending" could be the one conservative claimed trait that, while they don't actually do, could be said to meet a definition of conservative. The other two are neither things they've ever been, nor things that the word means, so I think it's straight propaganda that they'd ever be associated with those.
Ignoring the whole.... thing.... is this something kbin has the ability to prevent? Is first-come-first-serve moderation baked into the platform, or do we have a way to democratize/decentralize moderating, recall moderators, etc.
Or do we just have to accept the inevitability of mediocre power mods?
The only way for owner of a magazine to step down, currently, is to elect someone else as co-mod and then leave. Users on any platform could always sub and post to other instances and leave the powermod holding his dick, but this kind of thing may need to be addressed in the future.
Not sure whether voting people in/out of mod powers is the way to go, as it leaves good mods hyper susceptible to takeover brigading. At the very least, some hard limits need to be the norm. Maybe restrict it to 10-12?? No one should need to mod 30 different things on any instance.
This is...worrisome. I hope it's just to flood the server with communities for people to explore and join, because I think being conservative is ideologically incompatible with the existance of LGBTQ people, since the conservatives are always trying to outlaw LGBTQ and/or lead to a possible genocide.
And for the ones who say "Well, I'm lgbtq but I'm conservatives". You may think that the conservatives accept you as one of the "Good ones" but no, it's only a matter of time before the conservatives come after you too. If you're trans, the conservatives will only see you as your AGAB and will eventually tell you to/force you to detransition. If you are gay, they will tolerate your existence only if you are in the closet and "don't behave like a gay".
As a little piece of history, one of Hitler's most trusted generals was Ernst Röhm, who was a gay man. Hitler defended him a lot when he was rising to power and there were rumors about his homosexuality. So you know how powerful Rohm was, he was the leader of the Storm Troopers.
But then he came out publically, and was no longer convenient to have him because hitler's fanbase would never accept an homosexual, that and combined that Hitler was trying to get rid of anyone who could challenge his power, made him arrest and then kill Rohm in the Night of the Long Knives.
So, you are entitled to have any ideology you want, but being "One of the good ones" is no way to live our life. Rohm was "one of the good ones" Blair White is also "one of the good ones" and she gets so much hate from the side she tries so hard to defend and justify.
@Hurts But not European Conservatism. A lot of conservative parties have official lgbtq groups in them and even lgbtq ministers. I know it is hard to understand their existence, even for me. I mean even the far right AfD has a lesbian leader despite their extrem anti-lgbtq views.
And P.S.: Don’t shoot the messenger.
Because of all the closeted Republicans. Why do you think they constantly talk about Gay and Transpeople all the time ? Its what they are thinking about 24-7
I always think about Ted Haggard when this comes up.
I'd like to think that it's just an lgbt person who's also conservative (I'm transsexual and on the conservative side myself) but given it's "lgbtq" I kinda have a feeling it's probably a more progressive person who claimed the conservative sub to control it, rather than genuine interest...
"You are coming from an echo chamber (Reddit). You are more than welcome to not participate in this community, which I’m not sure why you’re here in the first place given that you are clearly not a conservative nor do you hold any(?) conservative views." @Hurts@lemmy.world
Seems pretty conservative to me.
"If you don't have conservative views, go away," "echo chambers are bad," same person...
I think anyone would be hard-pressed to say Reddit isn't a serious echo chamber with serious moderation issues.
Simply stating that someone that was spam posting and reporting posts on a conservative community may not be conservative and they're welcome to not participate there if the content bothers them that much in no way states my political alignment, which is admittedly somewhere centrist, which I believe puts me in the ideal position to be a moderator of both c/conservative and c/liberal, as I am not inherently incredibly biased towards one side or the other.
You guys really enjoy quoting me, but haven't quoted the most important and relevant thing I said for this post, which is that I am gay.
I have no agenda and have already passed ownership of c/conservative to someone else. The poster in question has been removed as a moderator as well. The only "moderation" I've done on c/conservative is un-removing comments that were removed by the other moderator for disagreeing with his posts, which IMO sounds like pretty good and fair moderation, no?
I have rejected 0 requests from people that have reached out to moderate any of the communities I am involved in, and quite frankly most of them besides 5-6 see 0 traffic.
I just took a look and.... yeah looks pretty conservative. huh. that's kinda rare to see.
I'd like to ask a question in good faith here, if that's alright.
If you are trans, why are you supporting American conservatives that platform policies against your health and existence?
I'm not asking as a 'gotcha,' because that lacks a compassionate curiosity. But I'm puzzled because these stances and identities seem incompatible and I'd like to understand better why, to you, they are.
You're under no obligation to answer, but I'm trying something new and pumping the brakes before I shut down curiosity to make a judgment. Whether you'll afford me that or not, is up to you.
I am not assuming they're American. I'm assuming they support American Conservative policy in reference to the instance that is primarily about American Conservatism being discussed. Which is how I asked the question.
I haven't the foggiest clue where this person is from or where they currently live.
Well to start, being conservative doesn't mean I necessarily support the american republican party or the various republicans in it. I like some more than others, but I typically don't vote republican.
When it comes to "my health and existence", ironically enough republicans tend to push back against transgender legislation that tramples over transsexual rights and healthcare. See the pushback against the equality act for a good example.
My views on lgbt are kinda complicated, and don't fit neatly within either the democrat or republican party, but they're "conservative" in nature (ie not new, but rather a return to how things were before).
On other issues, I tend to be conservative. For instance I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-free speech, etc.
I also consider myself to have far left economic views, akin to stuff like socialist policies (ubi, medicare for all, etc). So in practice I end up feeling more like a far left person with some conservative cultural/social views. There's not really a good label for people in this situation lol. I usually say "far left conservative" but that just confuses people lol.
Thank you for answering.
Why do you believe the Equality Act tramples over transsexual rights and healthcare?
And do you think your conservative values are instrinsic, or a part of your upbringing?
So on the equality act, it's a modification to existing legislation. the existing legislation protects sex-based rights (anti-discrimination), and the unstated assumption is that it includes lgbt. with the equality act it changes the definition of "sex" to refer to the vague pseudoscientific concept of "gender identity" which is predicated on the idea that transsexuals don't exist. The end result of reading the text being that sex isn't protected, and neither is transsexualism, but instead this gender identity concept.
A similar thing results in other laws/legal changes where transsexuals are just erased from the legislation. It's unclear what impacts that will have in the real world, but it's concerning nonetheless. The most recent efforts to change the icd have completely removed transsexualism, and if it's read literally, I'd lose access to healthcare.
As for my conservative views, I do not think they are intrinsic nor a part of my upbringing. I actually grew up with liberal views on social topics and have slowly become more conservative in my adult years. I used to be ambivalent and lean pro-choice on abortion, whereas as an adult I educated myself on the topic and came to the conclusion that pro-life is the proper way to go.
If we're to do a deep dive into psychology and political philosophy, I don't think my underlying values have changed (I still support freedom, life, etc). But rather my views on the best way to approach that have changed.
Cool.
I don't agree in the slightest with anything you said. I didn't ask as a means of debate, however, so I will refrain from any sort of counter-argument.
But I think the last part of what you said elucidates a lot. I think underlining that your values stayed the same, but your interpretations of how to best uphold those values being the part that changed gives some insight into the compatibility of your ethos. That's a very helpful for understanding others.
Thank you for answering truthfully and in good faith.
Yup no worries. I don't mean to start a debate. You were just curious about my views so I shared them :).
I'm really hoping the fediverse can be a place where we can discuss, and politely disagree, without being at each other's throats. On other sites like reddit and twitter it feels like everything has to be super hostile or echochamber. I think it'd be nice if we could just chat and get some mutual understanding going on.
There's definitely room for debate communities/magazines but yeah here isn't the place I think.
The "q" in lgbtq often refers to the q slur, and it's a newer acronym largely used by progressives. conservative lgbt people either stick with the classic lgbt, or in recent years have started using lgb as a way of distancing themselves from the transgender movement.
Not saying it's impossible for conservatives to use lgbtq, but it's rare IMO (speaking as someone on the conservative side in the lgbt community).
I've got mine so fuck you mentality... I'm a straight male but I support the shit out of everyone as long as they aren't shitting on people and distancing yourself from our Trans brothers and sister is awful and you know it... we are all people in the end and we need love and support...
You say "you support the shit out of everyone" except that's logically and literally impossible. There are groups with conflicting and contradictory worldviews, and to support one is to reject the other.
I'm not distancing myself from trans people. I am trans. I'm distancing myself from the transgender movement, which is mostly not made up of transsexuals.
I do not and cannot support the transgender movement because their foundational worldview is that transsexuals like myself do not exist. And until they yield on that topic, I cannot support them without denying my own existence.
I try to love and support everyone, but that means disagreeing with harmful pseudoscientific ideologies like the transgender movement. It means distancing myself from lgbtq progressives. Because those ideologies and worldviews are harmful to trans people.
I have no idea what you think "transgender" and "transsexual" mean, but I can almost guarantee it's not what other people mean when they say those things.
When I say transsexual I refer to people with the medical condition transsexualism that's been known and studied for over 100 years now.
When I say "transgender" I refer to those people who "identify as transgender". It appears to be a political movement, and not one I agree with.
There's a great effort by the transgender community and transvestites as a whole to appropriate transsexualism and deny transsexuals exist, as I mentioned in my previous post. Naturally my usage of the word transsexual will differ from theirs, because they are literally trying to deny transsexuals exist.
Yep, what I said then.
This is a good example of why people who identify as conservative shouldn't be trying to moderate LGBTQ+ spaces, even if they identify somewhere in that spectrum themselves. Conservatism at its heart is fundamentally focused on determining how other people do not belong to your "in" group and do not deserve the same privileges and rights as you do. Put more famously, "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
You're not quite doing it here with your really badly couched transmedicalist take and your skirting around actually saying what you mean, but we all know what you mean so I'm not sure why you're being so coy about it.
Yeah I think I miss read your comment as saying you wanted it lgb... my bad I assumed something and didn't fully read what ya said...my comment is deleted somehow wish it was still up anyhoo I'm super confused on the nuance on this because ive never heard any transgender or transsexual person in my life not support the other or say they dont exist but Ive only had a handful in my life at different times so you probably know more about the community... just be supportive and accepting and your alright in my book... and honestly Ive never once heard what you are saying come out of any transgender or transsexual friends mouths your the first Ive heard of it... very confused on why someone would say you don't exist cause you do
Well I'm pretty careful when I use the acronym. Personally I consider myself, and support "LGBT". There's an "LGB" movement that I find myself aligned with, albeit disagreeing with. Then there are the people who use "LGBTQ" or "LGBTQIA" and other such things, and I find myself opposed to them.
ive never heard any transgender or transsexual person in my life not support the other or say they dont exist but Ive only had a handful in my life at different times so you probably know more about the community... just be supportive and accepting and your alright in my book.
Yes, it's unfortunately the case that on this topic there's a few different worldviews/beliefs and they contradict each other, which leads to a lot of hostility and upset feelings in both directions. I agree that we should try to be kind, understanding, and supportive. But to do that means I need to disagree with some worldviews that may end up hurting some people's feelings.
nd honestly Ive never once heard what you are saying come out of any transgender or transsexual friends mouths your the first Ive heard of it... very confused on why someone would say you don't exist cause you do
The issue is because many people with transvestism conditions identify themselves as "transgender" and hold the belief that they have a "gender identity" that differs from their natal sex. In many cases they argue that this is due to having an oppositely sexed brain. The problem is that that view is simply untrue. There are sexed brains, and there are people with oppositely sexed brains, but that condition is transsexualism, not transvestism. And so these transgender/transvestite people try to argue it applies to them, and then deny that people outside of their situation (namely transsexuals) exist.
One of their big ideas involves "gender dysphoria". They believe that gender dysphoria arises due to the sex of the brain differing from the sex of the body, and thus dysphoria results. However, transsexuals like myself prove this to be untrue; as we do not experience "gender dysphoria" (or any other transvestism symptom) at any point.
Due to this, these people often start saying I'm "not actually trans" or that I'm "being a bigot" or that I "actually do have such symptoms and am lying/mistaken" and so on. a very hostile response.
I'd really like there to be some mutual understanding and arrival of views, but I don't think it's likely the way things are going...
One of their big ideas involves "gender dysphoria". They believe that gender dysphoria arises due to the sex of the brain differing from the sex of the body, and thus dysphoria results. However, transsexuals like myself prove this to be untrue; as we do not experience "gender dysphoria" (or any other transvestism symptom) at any point.
As a cis dude I don't really have a dog in this fight, but that's not great reasoning. Gender dysphoria could very well be a thing that many people experience, just not you or other (many? most?) transvestites.
I'm not going around saying "I'm not gay therefore gay people must not exist", it's absurd. I'm not gay, most people are not gay, but homosexuality is absolutely a thing that exists.
As I said, the q often refers to the slur, which many more conservative minded lgbt people are opposed to. in practice, the use of the acronym just ends up kinda being correlated with particular mindsets/views.
It's not a hard rule or anything just a general tendency I see.
I find this really interesting, if I may ask (in good faith), what makes you a conservative yet LGBTQ+ person? Are you in the U.S.? If not that may explain why you're conservative in the first place. I'm really curious.
I don't identify with lgbtq, and view it as antagonistic towards transsexuals. I'm transsexual (medically/biologically) so I fall under lgbt by default lol.
As for conservatism, I've slowly been moving towards conservative views due to various arguments, observations, etc. that I found convincing. For instance I am pro-life, pro-gun, etc.
I am indeed in the US, here in California (a red/conservative part of it though). Having the conservative views I do I end up a bit frustrated, since a lot of the republican party just pushes capitalist/corporate policies, and doesn't really focus on the conservative things I find important.
Apologies, I would have the Idea it's not being straight since gender and sex don't match (most the time, there are operations and what not) so i'd thought that'd fall under the LGBTQ category, so please don't take offense
You're 100% right with that 3rd paragraph, conservatives do tend to push stupid laws and shit, especially those that target LGBTQ, but also shit like Hunter Biden and Hillary a while ago. While I agree those are issues, they're in attempt to cover up other issues bigger issues to get away with it (Ex. Trump)
I don't mean for this to get off track, just another thing I find interesting, you said you were pro-life, do you think that should mean throughout their whole life? How do you feel conservatives are handling pro-life beliefs? Because a lot of the GOP are preventing or taking way things like free school lunches, healthcare, or safe living environment for the child.
I understand why some are pro-life and that everyone should live a great life, but i don't think they stick to it's true purpose if they take the "great" part away. I am personally pro choice, because there is scientific evidence babies don't even have a conscious till a certain amount of weeks, and it's as if a pregnancy never was going to happen in the first place.
Not only that but some people aren't ready for a child, aren't prepared to give it love they need, adoption centers (from what I have seen) rarley have children that are adopted and are packed. Not only that but many health complications can occur during pregnancy, and sometimes it resorts to abortion. Schools aren't even safe for children.
We're not pro-abortion trying to kill off babies for the thrill, rather we feel families should have a choice in what's best for them or even their child. What's the point of having the child if you can't give it the love and care they need? It may sound sick to say but sometimes it's more humane if it didn't have to live in this world.
Apologies, I would have the Idea it's not being straight since gender and sex don't match (most the time, there are operations and what not) so i'd thought that'd fall under the LGBTQ category, so please don't take offense
My issue wasn't so much the implication of it being "not straight" but of the LGBTQ label as opposed to LGBT. and no worries, no offense taken at all :) sorry if my comment came across as harsh. Whether transsexuals count as our own sexuality/orientation or as "straight" I suppose is just a linguistic debate lol.
You're 100% right with that 3rd paragraph, conservatives do tend to push stupid laws and shit, especially those that target LGBTQ, but also shit like Hunter Biden and Hillary a while ago. While I agree those are issues, they're in attempt to cover up other issues bigger issues to get away with it (Ex. Trump)
Agreed. I can't say I'm fond at all of the republican party, even though I have conservative views.
just another thing I find interesting, you said you were pro-life, do you think that should mean throughout their whole life? How do you feel conservatives are handling pro-life beliefs? Because a lot of the GOP are preventing or taking way things like free school lunches, healthcare, or safe living environment for the child.
So this is an instance I was referring to about how I feel the GOP isn't exactly pushing conservative values. I'm pro-life in every sense of the word. I support providing healthcare and that sort of thing. The "Jesus" approach so to speak. Help the needy, heal the sick, feed the hungry. It also means that I'm anti-war, against the death penalty, etc. I also support veganism. Not exactly a typical R/GOP type lol, but my family are closer to the "old left/liberal" type and I still have a lot of my way of thinking in that regard. I saw a comic once that suggested the "old left" ends up looking a lot like conservatives nowadays lol. I think it's fitting.
I am personally pro choice, because there is scientific evidence babies don't even have a conscious till a certain amount of weeks, and it's as if a pregnancy never was going to happen in the first place.
I won't start a debate here, but I will say I do understand the pro-choice viewpoint (as I was previously pro-choice). I think a lot of the concerns come down to niche cases (which I'm okay granting) and the issue of financial stability and support, which I feel are resolved through left-wing economics.
So I end up with some weird/uncommon views like the idea that we should pay women to leave the workforce and be mothers, and should give financial aid to families. Democrats dislike it because it pushes old gender roles, Republicans dislike it because it's a form of welfare or wealth redistribution.
Out of curiosity is your view that women should be paid to leave the workforce and be raise kids, or that a parent should be paid to leave the workforce to raise kids?
Because if the view is just that there should be a UBI for a stay at home parent then I don't disagree.
Are you suggesting that a conservative cannot also be LGBTQ+? I'm not conservative but I am a supporter of the LGBTQ+ community. Nonetheless, it seems prejudice and hypocritical to assume.
speaking as a trans queer person, having seen the rhetoric conservatives use to speak about people like me in both media and politics, having seen how they treat disabled folk (many of my queer friends are disabled), having seen how they treat the poor and unhoused, many of my lgbtq friends being poor and unhoused, having to do sex work that terrifies me bc i can't afford rent on disability rates
yea you can't be conservative in 2023 and support queer rights or advancement. it's literally not possible. you can privately be accepting of queer people in your life. but if you're a conservative, you're grouping up with people who are trying to kill us.
edit: bc i'm dumb and white i didn't include this initially, but conservatives also organizationally support cops lynching Black folk and i'd like to add that, this is another reason i will literally never befriend or fuck or even tolerate a conservative, outside of contexts where my safety is at risk. fuck conservatives. every one of them.
Fair enough. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and don’t like to think the world is black and white or absolute. Sorry to everyone if I came off as a dick in my initial response; Not my intention.
you didn't come off as a dick. i just think you were wrong. i give everyone the benefit of the doubt too, but people who wear conservative colours remove all doubt when they put on their uniforms. a conservative set of beliefs implies certain actions and behaviours, and literally every single one of them is destructive socially, and most of them are destructive to me personally.
i see a conservative, and i know i'm in danger. whether they say "you know i actually don't have a problem with gay people!!" or not
Yeah, just because they vote for people who are intent on stripping people of their rights, we shouldn't judge them based on their support of those people
Are you suggesting that a conservative cannot also be LGBTQ+?
Yes. 100%. What do conservatives stand for other than rage-baiting culture war bullshit? They certainly aren't in favor of fiscal responsibility or combating Russia's influence in the west or upholding the rule of law for everyone. What's left?
I'm conservative, there's nothing wrong with gay people I don't know why you would assume that all conservatives have something against them. Maybe it's your Limited worldview
I'm conservative, there's nothing wrong with gay people I don't know why you would assume that all conservatives have something against them. Maybe it's your Limited worldview
So answer the question. Without culture war "anti-woke" nonsense, what's left for you to believe in that causes you to identify as a conservative? They ran the deficit up $8 trillion dollars in four years, they're all about how cool and awesome Russia is, and they refuse to even wag a finger at any of their own who are indicted or convicted for crimes the rest of us would already be strapped into Ol' Sparky for. What beliefs do you have about the direction of America that line up with the conservative position in 2023 that don't involve the removal of LGBTQ+ people from society?
Or is this one of those "Gay people are fine. It's the groomers and the drag queens who we need a final solution for!" things?
There's conservative gays and self hating gays and guess what, they're the same gays. Imagine the mod of gaming was Bobby Kotick, sure, he's gamed, his gaming CV is a lot more interesting than most, but is he really the person you want shaping the discourse around gaming?
conservative lgbt people usually just go with "lgbt" rather than "lgbtq". I've also seen "lgb". yes there's conservative lgbt people but.... you know how things are lol
Yeah, I suppose you’re right . I just try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and don’t like to think the world is black and white or absolute. Sorry to everyone if I came off as a dick in my initial response; Not my intention.
no worries. and yes, I understand what you mean. people have a mix of views and sometimes it's counterintuitive. I'm far left in terms of economics, a bit conservative socially, and am transsexual. and a lot of people get confused by that lol.
I haven't dug into the magazines/subs in question, so it could go either way. But it's not uncommon for conservative lgbt to avoid the lgbtq label, and for people on either side to "squat" groups due to the conflict.
