this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
7 points (64.0% liked)

conservative

1518 readers
2 users here now

A community to satirize conservtive and right-wing "ideals".

This community (now) exists as a pressure valve, a place to process through humor the often frustrating world of conservative politics. Above all, this is NOT the place for serious conservative support/viewpoints/arguments. There are other places on Lemmy for that if you desire it.

Rules:

  1. Always follow .world instance rules

  2. Parody With Purpose: This is a space for humorous takes on conservative politics. We welcome satire, but draw the line at content that promotes racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry.

  3. Memes Over Manifestos: This community focuses on humor and parody, not serious political debate. There are plenty of spaces for earnest conservative discussion, this isn’t one of them.

  4. Highlight Contradictions: Sometimes the best content points out inconsistencies and hypocrisies in conservative talking points. Creative commentary is encouraged.

  5. Public Figures Fair Game: Politicians and pundits can be satirized, but no targeting of private individuals, doxxing, or harassment.

Children of public figures under the age of 14 are also off-limits, a 16 year old has enough free agency to break with or adopt their parents views. An 8 year old kid doesn't.

  1. No News Zone: Memes only, news or other serious content should be sent to the nearest relevant comm. Meme's of current events, however, are encouraged.

  2. Clear Satire: Make your satirical intent reasonably clear. We’re here to mock bad ideas, not accidentally spread them. If you're unsure how it will be taken, feel free to DM the mod team ahead of time or explicitly tag it as satire in the body.

A note on ChadMcTruth: Chad's content is 100% satire, but his work can sometimes be hard to tell, but if he posted it be assured, its satire.

  1. Relevant Content: All posts should relate to conservative politics or ideologies in some way somewhere in your post. Either in the title or the meme itself.

For more general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

  1. Community Respect: Disagree with fellow members all you want, but personal attacks aren’t welcome. Save the criticism for the ideas, not each other.

  2. Moderation Discretion: Mods will use reasonable judgment in applying these rules. We’ll be fair, but firm. These kinds of comms have a tendency to get off the rails, so we might seem overzealous in moderation sometimes.

  3. For the moment, i'm allowing properly tagged NSFW content as long as its funny and relevant. Don't make me regret it.

And above all, HAVE FUN!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm just curious what y'all think about that aspect of your identity. What's it based on? What are its limits?

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

OK, I'll bite. Keep in mind I am not from the USA, so what qualifies as "conservative" in my country is likely considered less so there. This is an adapted version of what I wrote when I was in a similar forum at reddit

I'm a conservative nationalist populist, with somewhat more emphasis on the latter. I am also - get this - a libertarian authoritarian. Confused? I'll explain.

I believe strongly in live and let live. You do whatever floats your boat, as long as it doesnt harm other people or unduly interfere with their enjoyment of life. Want to smoke dope, wear a furry suit 24/7, identify as polyamorous genderqueer otherkin? Wear a Confederate flag shirt? All at once? Knock yourself out, you do you, and I'm completely OK with that.

But as soon as you start interfering with other people, be it their freedom of speech, their lifestyle choices, or their autonomy, we, as in the state can and should come down on your ass in the most punitive, draconian way possible, your rights be damned. Just like any good authoritarian leader would. If you cannot respect the rights of others then why should you expect yours to be respected?

You respect and abide by the laws of society and its citizens, and contribute as and where you can, then you deserve the same rights as anyone else.

The specific issues that I would probably lean more "conservative" on;

  1. Law and order - I agree that there is far too much focus on punishment - on both sides of the debate. Sentencing needs to be about risk management, not punishment. That needs to be the primary driver. If risk can be alleviated by rehabilitation, well and good, and in many cases that can be done. But there is a minority of offenders who can never safely be released back into society, and need to be permanently isolated. I am in favour of rehabilitation if it is going to successfully remove that risk - with the emphasis being on the word successfully, because too often offenders are released upon the public when clearly whatever rehab has been undertaken has not worked. This applies especially for child molester paedophiles, the "treatment programmes" for paedophilia are pretty much snake oil, much like all the "reparative therapy" out there for gay people, and for not totally dissimilar biological reasons. I am extremely sceptical of the long term outcomes of all these "treatment programmes"

  2. Strong borders - for a whole host of cultural and environmental reasons, I believe immigration into all developed countries needs to be closely controlled and regulated. I dont object to manageable levels of immigration, but we should be selecting in favour of immigrants from cultures that are not heavily misogynistic, homophobic, or with extremely high levels of corruption, and that ideally share some cultural and linguistic background. Of course an individual may be leaving a country with an unfavourable culture because they are not compatible with it, in which case they are more likely to be compatible with ours, e.g. an atheist wanting to get out of Saudi Arabia. Which neatly segues to..

  3. Islam - especially as a gay man, I feel it needs to be acknowledged that Islam is problematic, and more so than any other major religion (barring Scientology which is even worse but thankfully much smaller). It has a few attributes which make it so, one being the lack of separation of church and state, another being the way it treats it's apostates (i.e ex-Muslims and those in sects that deviate from mainstream Islam). Of course not every Muslim is problematic, a good many arent (especially in the USA where many have come from more educated backgrounds to start with than those in Europe etc), and we need to separate the faith overall from its individual adherents.

  4. Free speech is necessary for a free society, including that which we despise. The test for me with this is those fucking Holocaust denier cunts who I loathe with a passion, but I do not want to see them prevented from spewing their shit as much as it rarks me up, because if they are stopped, who's next? Still hate those cunts though.

  5. Israel - I am an unabashed Zionist, and I make no apologies for that. Of course Israel is far from perfect, but it has the best human rights for LGBT people in the region by far (not that that is a particularly high bar) and manages to be a passably functional democracy in a region where those are few and far between while being in a state of siege and constant low level warfare with most of its neighbours. Of course its flawed! But those that criticise Israel while ignoring the far worse human rights violations of every other country in the region need to pull their heads out of the arses to be blunt.

  6. Welfare - I support a welfare state, but I do think that the one we have now performs poorly in that it does not adequately help those that really need it most and is far too easily abused. A large part of the problem is that the vast majority of benefits are paid out in cash to the accounts of beneficiaries, with no control on how it is used/ spent. While this is not a problem for many, perhaps most, a substantial proportion of beneficiaries spend the money on feeding their addictions - in other words, it makes all of us enablers. I have seen this first hand, with several different individuals. This is hugely counterproductive, as it feeds into increased costs in health and justice sectors, while completely failing to actually help those the welfare is given to. This needs to change (the details of which are for another post on its own!)

[–] jimbolauski@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The foundation of my conservative values is my distrust of the government, either they are intentionally fucking people over or their programs accidentally do at a huge cost to tax payers. Government is incapable of making policy at a micro level that is tailored to an individual's needs.

Tipper Gore with her push censor music was the thing that changed me from apolitical to conservative.

[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

I lean more libertarian, though I disagree on some things, but in general my beliefs line up with what people would typically categorize as "conservative" in a modern, American political context.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Guy who calls himself conservative here.

If a progressive is someone who wants progress things, a conservative is one who says "Is that really how we want to progress?" . With a gas pedal, you need a brake pedal so to speak.

Not all progress is good progress. Look at communism, and what progress towards that goal lead to. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A perfect example is guns. You look at the newspapers, and see all these masd shootings. Of course we should disarm the people. But you look at the stats and see just how rare mass shootings are, you look at what often happens to disarmed populations, and how disarment doesn't actually work, suddenly disarment looks like bad progress.

Not all progress is good, a lot is bad, even with good intentions.

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Disclaimer, I'm far to the left personally. With that in mind:

One definition is that on the left, everyone should be able to be however they want to be, and you shouldn't infringe people's freedom by telling them they have to be this way or that way, if that's not in their nature. On the right, there's a right way to live and a wrong way to live, and it's okay if the people who are "in the right" and hold some natural authority as a result are telling the people who don't have their act together (financially, life-organization-wise, sexually, whatever) what's what.

I won't say one is right and another is wrong; they apply well or badly in different contexts. Academia tends to be left-wing. Militaries tend to be right-wing. It's generally good to be on the left if you're trying to understand the world and figure things out without a preconceived notion of what the right and wrong answers are. It's generally good to be on the right if you need action, strength of character, ability to defeat your enemies or defend yourself without getting extensively hung up in second-guessing.

This doesn't apply very well to the modern US political landscape, which is pretty far afield of the traditional definitions of left and right, but that's a separate topic.

Let the hate-responses commence 😃

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I won’t say one is right and another is wrong

Why is it so hard for people to understand that imposing one's will on another is fundamentally wrong?

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It's not always, though.

If someone shoplifts, the police should come by and impose their will on the shoplifter that they're under arrest. If you're raising a child, and the child doesn't want to mow the lawn or keep their room clean, my opinion is that it's your responsibility as a parent to address it in some fashion, instead of just saying "Oh well, he doesn't want to."

This is precisely what I was saying: There are contexts where you can say "X is right and Y is wrong and we need to enforce that," and other contexts where yes, trying to enforce it is some form of human rights violation. There can legitimately be disagreement about which is which, but pretending that everything is the second case is just as wrong as pretending everything is the first case.

Edit: spelling

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If someone shoplifts, the police should come by and impose their will on the shoplifter that they’re under arrest.

This is the authoritarian mindset -- I don't believe ruining someone's life and putting them in danger of being shot is the solution to likely petty losses.

Also, business owners are capitalists and are already robbing their communities, I have no empathy for them.

Parent child relationships I'm willing to bend a bit but there are enough abusive parents out there that I don't believe that parents have ultimate authority to impose their will on their children. It takes a village...

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is the authoritarian mindset – I don’t believe ruining someone’s life and putting them in danger of being shot is the solution to likely petty losses.

How about if someone breaks in your apartment and threatens your safety? Would you support the cops being authoritarian with them, maybe putting their life in danger if they're resistive against being arrested, in that case?

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm not white, TBH I'd be more afraid of the cops killing me intentionally or "accidentally" than from someone who wants my stuff.

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

The question (1) wasn't someone who wants your stuff - it was specifically someone breaking in and endangering you personally (2) wasn't about what you thought might happen if you called the cops; I asked it in a very specific way for this exact reason. If there happened to be police around, or somebody else who wasn't the police, and that person intervened to stop you being assaulted and informed that endangering party that they were breaking the law and tried to forcefully subject them to the consequences of breaking the law. Would you support that action? Or you'd support the burglar's right to be free from authoritarianism in their effort to hurt you?

I'm not trying to be combative with you about it. I do absolutely get the point about not wanting to engage with the justice system if the justice system isn't interested in justice for you and in fact seems dangerous to you. But to me you're clearly taking it to such a broader extreme that I honestly have trouble believing that you'd apply it to that extent as pertains your own life and safety.

I think being able to constructively address the very real problem of police misconduct has to include acknowledging the very genuine reality of "something very bad is happening and violent action is warranted to stop it." Have I understood you accurately, that you're saying you don't think that's true in any case? Because I feel like floating that argument actually makes it more difficult to address the very real problem of police violence, because it makes your viewpoint super easy to dismiss for someone who's into the day-to-day reality of crime and law enforcement.

[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

Care to shoot me a dm with your address then?

[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Is it wrong for me to want to impose my will onto others and make them not rape kids?

[–] jimbolauski@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Your straw man fails to account for something very simple. The rapists is imposing their will on the victim, stopping others from imposing their will on others is the line between anarchy

[–] MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

Just saying the name of a fallacy doesn't make your moronic comment any less retarded

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago

The only time it's acceptable to impose your will on another is self-defense or community defense.

[–] 10A@kbin.social -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Actual conservative here. To me it mostly means a defense of the essential culture and values of Christendom, AKA Western civilization.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Christendom

lol.

Do you think america was founded as a christian nation?

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes? Well specifically protestant if you don't consider protestants to be Christianity which I know some catholics do.

Theres seperation between church and state, but that comes from Christianity, and a lot of the other constitutional values come from Christianity.