- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
(Not mine, just sharing)
You must log in or # to comment.
That overlap is extremely conservative.
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.
Hey that doesn’t feed the narrative to hate “others” by demonizing and homogenizing groups.
Can you define socially conservative? In my experience, that includes people who believe “races” should be segregated
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.
in multiple ways yes
MAGA in the middle
Life is full of mysteries but this is one I just will never get. How are they able to “lose the thread” so badly?
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.
Many people truly do not understand how correct George Carlin was when he said, “the average person is pretty dumb…”.
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.
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?
It’s malicious stupidity.
deleted by creator
Life means something else when you’re a death worshiper.
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.
I think “anti-choice” is adequate, gets the point across in a different way
Especially since “pro-choice” by no stretch means “anti-life”.
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
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.
Yea, they were never going to pay for any of that or help in any way.
“Pro-suffering”?
Birth can mean a healthy happy life afterward (they wouldn’t want that), so more like “pro-plentiful-cheap-labor-supply”
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.
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.
There are a not-insignificant number of liberal gun owners.
Opposing gun control and owning a gun aren’t synonymous. Is that hard to understand?
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.
If you go left far enough you oppose gun control and aren’t overlapping any of those circles…
Gun control has nothing to do with left vs right. Either you are privileged enough to have never felt true danger or you live in the real world.
Most of the real danger in my life is the result of guns being in the hands of people who want to kill me because I walked on their grass or something
Has this ever actually happened to you?
I get a few “Go back to where you came from” and a N word here and there, as well as standard police BS. It got worse during Trump and we bailed the small towns.
But you tell me how many dead folks you need before you feel validated.
I was assaulted a month ago, didn’t draw any weapon but if strangers didn’t intervene at the last second I would have. I belong to a targeted minority, and the only alternative to being able to defend myself is basically just to hide.
Edit: Maybe a bit longer than a month ago now
So… The gun wasn’t needed
If the altercation started 15 seconds earlier it would have been different. If that changes nothing for you then there is no need to continue this
I feel like this comment could go either way.
Read the other reply to my message. They admit they haven’t experienced true danger, and they’re clearly in favor of gun control.
I grew up in a pretty liberal area around lots of gun enthusiasts. Some of them liked to hunt, others were just really protective of their property.
I now live in a pretty conservative area around lots of gun enthusiasts. Some of them like to hunt, others are just really protective of their property.
Gun violence doesn’t come from responsible gun owners, it comes from gangs (usually stolen guns), mentally unwell people (often stolen), and police (kind of both of the previous groups…). The solution isn’t “fewer scary guns in general,” but “better checks to reduce the guns that get to bad people.”
My suggestion is to attack each of the problems separately:
- gangs - invest in poor areas to increase opportunities, legalize recreational drugs, promote free contraception options, etc
- mental health - increase access to mental health services, make requirement for locking up firearms (increase barrier to access), require private firearm sales to go through gun dealer or police (to facilitate background checks), etc
- police - split force into unarmed and armed groups, with armed police having higher expectations, training and salaries
Gun control legislation I’ve seen so far is mostly useless, since it attacks “scary guns” like the AR-15 style guns, which are a minority among gun violence by statistics, which are dominated by suicides and gang violence (both often use handguns, not AR-15 style rifles).
I’ve been in potentially deadly situations but guns were irrelevant to the equation.
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.
Being someone living in the Netherlands, I live in a country where pigs and shills have guns, and it’s great here!
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Nah fuck your guns too
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?
Don’t hurt yourself reaching
Ok
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.
It would certainly make more sense to label the center as MAGAts.
The diagram presumes that people who are pro-life are pro-death penalty, and also that people who are pro-choice are automatically anti-death penalty.
There are definitely people who protest at abortion clinics and also at executions. Just because someone is pro-life doesn’t mean they are automatically a hypocrite.
The point is that all three of those things are pro-death.
Calling yourself pro-life and supporting policies that directly lead to death is hypocritical.
Also, the diagram doesn’t have anything in the two circle overlaps, so that’s saying there’s no common trait between the two (although there definitely are)
Yes, they are, because forced birthing is deadly. The idea of calling it “pro life” is on its face a hypocritical position.
They are welcome to call it pro-forcing-pregnancy-to-term-under-any-circumstance But I suspect that even those ghouls know it makes for a bad headline
deleted by creator
There is literally only one guy who is both pro-birth and anti-gun, and I know that because when they found him he got interviewed on Sunday Morning as an oddity.
