• hdnsmbt@lemmy.world
    134·
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t call it “thinking”. Conservatives react more than anything. They react to progress (–> hate), change (–> hate) and things they’re not familiar with (–> hate). They don’t pro-actively think per se.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          9·
          1 year ago

          They were wrong, of course, but it wasn’t that long ago that economic conservatives were a thing - the majority, even. Now the culture war brain rot they had to deploy to deflect from how ineffective things like trickle-down economics are have consumed them completely.

          • madcaesar@lemmy.world
            8·
            1 year ago

            How far back do I have to go to find non bigoted Conservatives? Iike to watch old cspan debates as far back as the 90s with Gingrich it was already hate, fear and culture war. I’m trying to find these mythical Conservatives that want to balance the budget without discriminating or putting some minority group down…

            • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
              3·
              1 year ago

              Tl:dr: the non-bigoted conservatives died when the last of the non-culture-war messaging did.

              Depends on how you slice it.

              From a consequential standpoint, conservatives are and basically alway have been bigoted.

              If you’re looking at people who know their vote has bigoted outcomes, but don’t care and are motivated by other things, that’s probably the majority historically.

              If you’re asking if people are being intentionally bigoted, when the conservative messaging is now exclusively culture war nonsense, they’re the overwhelming majority today.

              I’d say that a reasonable portion, potentially the majority of your McCain and Romney voters were well intentioned - wrong, but we’ll intentioned.

              There’s also a bloc of voters that will vote conservative because they always have - no thought whatsoever - the dems are worse. Why? Shrug

              I think it’s now impossible to be a good person and vote conservative - you’d need to somehow ignore everything they say and do to vote blindly, which is bad in and if itself.

  • First Majestic Comet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    104·
    1 year ago

    I knew a hardcore Maga conservative once, this is very accurate to how they behaved, they really hate everyone, they just pretend to care about certain people so they can put down others.

      • First Majestic Comet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        10·
        1 year ago

        I’ve heard that a lot of them tend to me very harmful to children, and not just the old fashioned conservative authoritarian families or mistreatment of trans kids, like a lot of them exploit children into being intimate with them 🤮. The irony is they try to say that queer and trans people are groomers but the real groomers are them. They are hardcore projecting.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      11·
      1 year ago

      My mom fell hard into Qanon in 2019, and it was crazy how she just flat-out stopped having any opinions of her own. We were never close, but we were at least able to have the occasional conversation before that, but now any attempt to talk to her immediately turns into her reciting something she saw on youtube. I can’t remember the last time she said anything to anyone that didn’t start with “So my videos said…”

  • notaviking@lemmy.world
    57·
    1 year ago

    Conservatives: get a job you homeless, like all the hard working people. Workers: so you care about workers rights and a fair living wage? Conservatives: get out of here with your socialism… And the list continues

  • GreenMario@lemm.ee
    45·
    1 year ago

    You can go further.

    So you care about your kids? Spare the rod spool the child

    So you care about yourself? Health food/healthy living is gay

    And MAGA didn’t do it to them they’ve always been like this. Trump just talks exactly like they do on Facebook. Verbatim. Theyre worshipping themselves when they worship Trump.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    42·
    1 year ago

    MAGoos will spend hours lauding veterans, then spend twice as much time lauding the guy who says he ‘likes soldiers who don’t get captured.’

  • bmsok@lemmy.world
    26·
    1 year ago

    Gaslight. Obstruct. Project. Ladies and gentlemen and everyone in between, this is what GOP truly means.

    • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      8·
      1 year ago

      a- and ppl who aren’t on the binary spectrum?🥺🥺

      (i feel the need to point out that non-binary does not necessairily mean “in between”. i appreciate that u tried tho <3)

      • bmsok@lemmy.world
        7·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t know that would be offensive. I really didn’t. I thought my comment was inclusive to everyone. Can anyone tell me how to be more tactful with my words in the future?

        I have very good friends who identify as their true selves in so many ways and I love them all dearly. It would crush me if I don’t learn something from this. To me, a is part of the category I was attempting to include.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zoneEnglish
          8·
          1 year ago

          To me, a is part of the category I was attempting to include

          I could be wrong (and I hope @[email protected] will correct me if I am), but I don’t think “a” is a category. I think they were simulating a stutter. The “a- and ppl” is (I think) meant to be pausing and restarting the word “and” halfway through.

            • AceCephalon@pawb.social
              7·
              1 year ago

              As an Asexual, can confirm, they’re just making a joke with a text based stutter, not referring to Asexual or Agender, such as in “LGBTQIA+” that generally refers to multiple things under the “A”.

              In the latter case, it’s left open ended for inclusivity, rather than arbitrarily excluding other things by specifying.

              As for how the original comment could possibly be more inclusive, it’s harder to say exactly, but I can think of something like “Ladies, Gentlemen, and everyone else”, but I’m not exactly great at fancy words… or words in general… but I try my best.

              • bmsok@lemmy.world
                3·
                1 year ago

                Ace is the term I’m familiar with, too. I just didn’t want to be left in the dark if there was an even more abbreviated version of the abbreviation.

        • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de
          1·
          1 year ago

          Probably “third people” is an appropriate term. Like, in the cold war, there was “first” world and “second” world (not discussing which is which), but then there were bystanding parties not participating in the conflict. They used to be called “third world countries”. Happy to help

      • TomAwsm@lemmy.world
        5·
        1 year ago

        I see what you mean, though I would probably make the same mistake myself without thinking it through.

        What would be a better way to address “everyone”?

        • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          2·
          1 year ago

          this is a little difficult, as social awareness for nonbinary ppl is still developing and we especially dont have a lot of established formal or fancy ways to address/include them.

          a few small things i have learned/picked up over time:

          1. don’t try to define all nonbinary identities in relation to the mainstream genders.

          example: ladies, gentlemen and everyone inbetween

          • –> ladies, gentlemen and people of all other identities
          • –> ladies, gentlemen and everyone else

          explanation: some nonbinary identities (genders or not) can be defined in relation to men and women but this is not true for all of them. something like “and inbetween” or “all around them” is therefore not fully inclusive and might even imply an underlying ignorance, which could make ppl feel unseen and misunderstood.

          1. try not to seperate into genders at all

          example: ladies, gentlemen and people of all other identities

          • –> everyone
          • –> people of all identities

          explanation: something like “ladies, gentlemen and everyone else” ends up reducing all nonbinary genders into one “everyone else” while the two mainstream genders get named directly. this implies that nonbinary identities are less important to the speaker. it’s ofc impossible to name all identities individually, so when trying to address everyone, i would try to not seperate into genders at all.

          1. dont think of nonbinary identities as necessairily genders

          example: ladies, gentlemen and people of all other genders

          • –> ladies, gentlemen and people of all other identities
          • –> ladies, gentlement and non-binary folk

          explanation: the nonbinary umbrella does, next to nonbinary genders, also include people without a gender (agender). so if we try to address everyone by simply including all genders, we might still forget agender people.

          sowy for the wall of text. i went all out with formatting in the hope that that might make it more readable.

          this is all just my personal perspective and i pwobably didnt get everything right myself. i hope it can still help other ppl be more inclusive :3

          • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            1 year ago

            All of this is one reason why I find myself using ‘fellow humans’ as a form of address. Yeah, it sounds like you’re an alien overlord in a skin suit, but it’s 100% inclusive.

            That and (to get all hippy about it) it’s a consciousness shifting exercise - refuse divisions when they’re not necessary for a specific discussion, think at the level of shared humanity as the default.

    • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      My friend is a journalist who covers right wing extremism and talks to these people all the time. He says the thing they all have in common is they’re all dumb as a bag of hammers.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    12·
    1 year ago

    The con sun on Reddit seems to agree with muslims a lot, they are even aware of “the good” the terrorists do.

    They just don’t want to see or interact with them

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand what you mean by “con sun.” I also don’t quite know what you mean by, “‘the good,’ the terrorists do.” Terrorists can do good, but usually don’t. The groups that spawn the terrorists usually have genuine grievances, but the organizations aren’t always interested in addressing those grievances as much as they want to be the rulers. That’s the case with Hamas, an organization that’s been supported by genocidal zionists since its inception. Hamas is almost controlled opposition.