I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.
I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.
Federated sites overlap with leftist-adjacent interests. Software freedom, opposition to Facebook, weird illustrated porn, that sort of thing. Even if we’re not leftists - we’re the people who heard about Lemmy and went “oh, like Mastodon.”
Many leftists were also familiar with Mastodon, because they saw Twitter as a harassment engine. Every system is perfectly designed to produce its observed results. Even before Elmo took over, Twitter was a continuous source of misery by design, if not on purpose. Now it’s definitely on purpose. And it’s been tilted against leftists, specifically, for a long damn while.
Some people are here because the mainstream options were a threat to their physical safety.
Meanwhile, right-wing assholes aren’t leaving Twitter until they run out of victims. They just want an outgroup to yell at. They don’t even like alternatives made for them specifically, because they can’t stand each other, either. When they get tired of suffering their own company they’ll migrate over to Threads. And then endlessly whine that Threads is “bias” against them, no matter how blatantly Zuck ignores their abuse and silences their victims.
Reddit was in a damningly similar situation, long before Spez decided to burn down every scrap of trust and goodwill. Some of us have been waiting on a better alternative for ten fucking years. There wasn’t one. There still isn’t. The bastards in control just made reddit itself worse, in ways that make even passive use feel like a failure and a betrayal. Spez could personally hunt me down and kick me in the groin, and it wouldn’t leave me any less likely to waltz back in with a smile on my face. Dumb bastard made insane demands, killed the best interfaces, told us stupid lies, threw away our money, declared protest powerless, and threatened the people who do all of the fucking work on his empty box of a website… then says ‘they’ll come crawling back.’ Nooo shit the first people out were principled self-organizing curmudgeons.
That aside:
People here reasoning from what they pretend “conservative” must mean are actively doing harm. Political conservatism obeys none of the other dictionary definitions. It’s just a label. It’s the label chosen by generations of influential public figures whose general philosophy is “Well someone has to be the king.” That is their only constant, and it is a thought process baked into the human brain. It is our default. That’s why dealing with it is such frustrating bullshit.
Isn’t this kinda true of most politically-associated labels? Communism, socialism, capitalism, egalitarianism, progressivism… they can all be thought of as general ideas, but when someone actually uses them, they could be referring to a more specific concept, or twisting the idea a bit, or referring to a specific person’s definition of the idea and its kinda hard to know how to interpret it…
Nobody says shit like “communists want community” or “egalitarians love eagles.” But that’s constantly happening for conservatism. People will bend over backwards making up what reeeeal conservatives must surely want… in complete denial of what the visible super-duper-majority of self-identified conservatives actually say and do.
I’ve heard stuff like “communists want community”, but perhaps we are in different social environments. I will agree though that the manipulation of some terms might be more extreme than others.
I don’t know if you strung that set of words together yourself or read it somewhere, but I had never quite heard it put that way before. Very succinct. Sorry, I’m very into language, sentences are like flowers to me and that’s a particularly nice blossom.
Re “conservatives,” it’s an extremely frustrating word because of how it’s been misused. I took Intro PoliSci once, my teacher was an open Marxist like me, and he taught us a non-loaded, non-controversial, non-toxic definition of political Conservatism - it was along the lines of, “Conservatives believe that societal change should be done slowly, with careful consideration, with as little disruption to the existing society as possible.” - and in all honesty, I once knew a few people who fit that description pretty good. They are long dead now, and I considered them devils at the time we knew each other, but I wish they were around right now, because I know we would all pretty much agree about all this bullshit - we spent a lot of time debating in places like this, and we got into a lot of what ifs. I don’t believe any of them would pinch their nose for the current leader of our (Canadian) Tories.
I’m not saying, if we were to apply your maxim about “observed results” to the matter, that that is what Conservatism is “perfectly designed” to do, but that’s more or less what the word actually means, and what the traditional branding of Conservatism has been; neither a desire to anachronistically cosplay the worst parts of the past, nor a desire to pointlessly harm life (another word they have barbarized to the point of uselessness), is actually an ideological feature of the traditional Conservative political body. In the 1950s the SBC approved of abortion. Look it up if you don’t believe me - there was once a time when they really did believe that life was precious. Jimmy Carter was one of em.
It’s the most fundamental aspect of how the modern Right uses routine gaslighting to sell their baldfaced neo-aristrocrat sceheme, because whatever individual opinions modern Conservatism might share with the GOP Nixon admin that started the EPA - an institution with a foundational intent so thoroughly conservative that they should be running CPAC - they are the ones attempting to radically change society in as short a time as possible.
If we go back to my Marxist professor’s definition, my Marxist ass is generally the most conservative one in most of the rooms I occupy.
I absolutely stole that from somewhere else. It had a similarly revelatory effect and has been wedged in my brain ever since. (Oh hey, I made a note of who to blame: r4b1d0tt3r, MD.)
Not to speak ill of the dead, but… there’s every chance the reasonable bastards you knew would update their bullshit and be even worse. I think your professor did you a disservice in exactly the way I’m sore about. Fascists are conservative. Fascists are hyper-conservative. That never means they’re extra-vigilant against change. They openly demand transformative destruction of existing society, so they can reinvent something that’s always been around. If that sounds contradictory it’s a side effect of how it’s total fucking nonsense. They’re just saying words. It’s not a rational worldview. It’s the innate tribalism of the human animal, cranked to eleven via modern rhetorical gimmicks.
“Branding” is the only place conservatism makes any goddamn sense, because it’s a story they tell. They’re lying. They’re just saying words. When you were in college their reputation was bullshit they made up about times before you were born, and when you were born their reputation was bullshit they made up about when your parents were young. Right now they’re surely selling bullshit about twenty-odd years ago. I’m sorry to say I haven’t paid much attention on account of US politics being such a dumpster fire that your worst scandals seem quaintly desirable. We’ve got people wistfully apologizing for George W Bush’s rainbow of doom and torture prisons, or the Gingrich-era witch hunts against against homosexuals and liberal activism, or the goddamn AIDS crisis under Reagan. Even here, you’re hand-waving that absolute scumbag Richard Nixon did one good thing under intense duress because he expected it to flounder. This is a con job that has been pulled on you. And us. On the world, really, at scale and continuously, to this day.
The traditional branding of conservatism is “we did everything good, but now we’re angry.”
That myth of eternal innocence as justification for outright violence is the only consistent story of this tribalist mode. It is pure ingroup-versus-outgroup storytelling. Good things in the past? Us us us, fuck them. Bad things now? Well they must have stolen the good things from us. (Nevermind who was in charge!)
When you find yourself saying ‘by this definition of conservative, leftists are conservatives,’ that is a shit definition. My apologies to your professor.
You should stop with your holier than thou bs. The left is no better authoritarian than the right
“Both sides,” says one side.
Or what? Lol.
Anecdotal, but similar experiences, similar thought processes on this end of the server too. Conservatives don’t conserve anything, but they sure do suck.
They are the product of generations of inbreeding and religious brainwashing.
Holier than thou? Hahaha. They’re not actively harming humans, forcing their dipshit religion on anyone. Care about human rights, care about having women decide to have an abortion or not. Unlike your kind.
Just fuck off mate.
Fun fact: if you’re raised in a chaotic environment of abuse, distrust, and neglect, you can go blissfully free of the need for leadership for the low, low price of CPTSD! I assume that this leaderless way of thinking can be imparted to children without truama, but I only know how I got there. For better or worse, I’ve never trusted or craved authority because my formative authorities were infinitely untrustworthy and unsafe.
I’ve never been more proud to be categorized!