I'm as liberal as they come but the dog piling on individuals who have opinions that deviate from the norm can sometimes be a really bad look for this site. GAF usually handles situations like this by attacking individuals rather than explaining which isn't a good way of changing anyone's opinions on anything. It might support a viewpoint I agree with but its rarely done with any tact or respect for the other person.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Question for conservative/non liberal gaffers
- Thread starter Pop On Arrival
- Start date
- Status
travisbickle
Member
I'd give the Tories more than 6 months in power as a single party before deciding how far left/right they are on the political spectrum. These are the guys that hid child tax credit changes from their pre-election manifesto.
Damn. You mean when I voted against Pat McCroy, the general assembly, and against my state senator, I was actually voting for republicans and NOT the democrats they said they were on my ballot??
Laieon
Member
It's not unheard of for KKK members or Neo Nazis to realize they're wrong. Treat them like people, who knows, maybe they'll see the error of their ways and change.
I think it's also important to remember that conservatism doesn't automatically equal KKK members and neo nazis. Both conservatives and liberals have extremists.
Not sure why it's unfair to be labeled by the party you endorse regardless of how far left you intend your vote to count. especially when you still give tacit support to the party.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
What about if you don't vote?
I can understand if you support them with a vote, but do you think a conservative that doesn't vote should be defined by the GOP's actions?
FriedConsole
Banned
Well conservatives get a quote till ban. I have gotten it as a moderate and don't bother with political threads anymore.
I agree with this but I usually get something like "SO ARE YOU SAYING BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME?" around here with stuff like that.
I agree with this but I usually get something like "SO ARE YOU SAYING BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME?" around here with stuff like that.
Why should conservatives be required to publicly denounce bigotry and racism any more than those on the left in order to normalise their position?
Just because they're conservative, it is completely ignorant to assume that they're just as racist and bigoted as others. It's not their job to wear a "it's alright, I'm not a racist" badge anymore than it is for those on the left.
What it is is an i) image problem and a ii) media problem. More often than not, people just think conservatism ≠ racist/bigot. People need to be more critical, open-minded, and investigative before forming judgment.
I partially view this as a limit of the two party system we have in the US.
Against illegal immigration and gun control but in favor of LGBT rights? Too fucking bad, there isn't a candidate who supports your views because of how polarized the two parties are. They have such little crossover between the two that you either have to endorse their beliefs in full or not at all.
disastermouse
Banned
There's a black musician who travels the country and befriends KKK members. They give him their robes and he collects them as trophies. I wish I could remember his name.
no. Despite the way I respond, I find certain tenants of conservatism appealing, but the overwhelming issue I have, at least for the US, the bigotry isn't separated from the conservative movement because the leaders of that movement follow that creed. if a conservative voter decides to pull themselves away from the Republican party then on an individual basis that has merit. But again, the hard part is separating the leadership from it. I know it's a flawed process to do this but where we stand right now, too much policy is affected by the conservative party to make it easier for me to separate the two. hopefully we can get back to a point where it's more even-keeled but for now I don't see that.
Definitely, but that's the reality of American politics right now and we have to act and judge based on the reality of the situation. No candidate is perfect but I sure as shit see bigotry as a policy platform as irreconcilable.
travisbickle
Member
Who is for illegal immigration in the US political system?
ZackieChan
Member
Why do you assume endorsement of a specific party? This is the crux of the issue with your nonsense posting in this thread.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
Yeah, once they leave it's different. They're not part of the group. The people in the group believe those things, so when they are associated with that group, I will be bigoted towards them.
I think the point being discussed about not being a bigot is a result of the negative stigma behind the word. The proper use of the word, and "being a bigot", doesn't have to be a negative thing. When used in a context such as this.
This is much more open minded and reasonable than your reply to the first post.
I more or less meant less staunchly against it or supportive against voter ID laws, amnesty, maternity tourism, etc...
Can I ask why you didn't start with a post like that instead of having to gold pan for it through the previous shit?
On to the post itself, what your taking issue with is a voter continuing providing governmental power to the republican party. That's not every conservative voter in a nutshell. I understand where you are coming from, as the party is moving away from anything I myself hold dear to the hard social right, and though I still hold limited government (and I take that far more seriously than the GOP does), I find myself rarely voting for GOP candidates these days.
Makai said:
No security at all? Come on, you need a strict border control. That said, you also need a streamlined improved immigration/naturalization process that doesn't take 5 years and upwards of $10,000. Ludicrous.
I am. Let em come.
Hyperactivity
Banned
Gonna join in saying the dogpiling here is ridiculous here. Personally used to hold some more conservative beliefs, and I won't lie in saying GAF contributed in the change that happened, but I had to filter out tons of crap and just focus on the decent posts to do that.
You're not convincing anyone of anything or changing anyone's viewpoints if you're calling them a bigot. Hate to use anecdotal evidence, but my position on gay marriage was an evolving thing, not some wake up the next day and realize how wrong I've been thing.
Even if you think you're "lowering" yourself to argue with someone else on an issue, get on equal footing with them, etc., if you can't do it, then the whole argument is pointless. Neither side will be convincing anyone of anything.
This isn't even to assume that all conservatives can be "Converted" to "the right side", that's utter crap to think to, I'm just thinking of it along the lines of myself and how my positions have changed
Then you're not voting, putting you in with a bunch of other people across the spectrum, but acting sort of silly all thesame
You're not convincing anyone of anything or changing anyone's viewpoints if you're calling them a bigot. Hate to use anecdotal evidence, but my position on gay marriage was an evolving thing, not some wake up the next day and realize how wrong I've been thing.
Even if you think you're "lowering" yourself to argue with someone else on an issue, get on equal footing with them, etc., if you can't do it, then the whole argument is pointless. Neither side will be convincing anyone of anything.
This isn't even to assume that all conservatives can be "Converted" to "the right side", that's utter crap to think to, I'm just thinking of it along the lines of myself and how my positions have changed
Then you're not voting, putting you in with a bunch of other people across the spectrum, but acting sort of silly all thesame
John Kowalski
Banned
kind of ot but it's depressing how low the cross communal interaction in gaf can be
Do you know anything about conservatism? I mean, holy shit.
I should've come across better indeed and for that I apologize.
It's a bad situation to be in if you're identify as conservative because your options for representation are limited and that sucks. I can't entirely separate the two until a shift in leadership occurs. Maybe this election cycle will be the wake-up call. maybe not. I hope it is because the country needs diverse idealogy on policy issues to move ahead as a whole, but being bogged down in the current one that is far more exclusive than inclusive when it comes to social issues is not a good suit to wear.
Why? 15 million undocumented people are in America and we're still chugging along.
I hear conservatives complaining about the vehemently liberal communities online and how they "cream" or "smear" conservatives constantly. I've seen some legitimate cases of misrepresenting and/or name calling by liberals on social media instead of addressing the conservative positions. But mainly it amounts to criticism, and lots of it. It seems to me that this is the problem conservatives have with the Internet, it introduces their ideas to scrutiny. And they seem very uncomfortable with that. I think it is because many of their policies and arguments are weak/flawed/inherently illogical. They don't stand up to scrutiny well because they aren't based on reasoned facts, they are mainly emotional arguments, "common sense", based on tradition, or arrived at inductively. This means that as soon as some conservative posts a factoid about Obamacare and 50 people post rebuttals, they simply can't argue their point well and withdraw immediately under the pretense of persecution. This is how I've seen it, ymmv. Not all conservatives are the same, but you guys keep electing the same officials and the only true "antiestablishment" movement in your party is the somehow-even-crazier tea party type. Instead of a modern, reasoned, fiscally conservative, socially liberal wing. Those guys almost don't exist, except here on GAF it seems.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
Because if everyone that wanted to come to the US came to the US we'd have some serious population issues.
We'd have pretty fabulous economic growth.
OminoMichelin
Member
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
That's a fairly bold claim with no evidence to back it up.
Because there are a lot of people that want to come to the US.
Like 150+ million.
You can't live in empty space. You have to build things there. That stuff doesn't exist, the surge of people coming into our borders if it was legal would be insane. I would much rather be conservative about that, than find out what happens if we allow it.
Monocle
Member
Pointing out faulty logic and basic misunderstandings seems to be taken as a kind of vicious personal attack by some conservative posters. This leads them to claim that they can't participate as much as they'd like because they'll be shouted down, when the actual problem is their refusal to engage with people who want to have a conversation in spite of the dogpilers.
An example would be discussions about small business owners who invoke religious freedom to deny service to gay customers. Often there are at least a couple of posters who take the side of the owners. And naturally enough, there tends to be a surge of posts challenging their views. Now, if every single one of these posts were personal insults, I could understand why someone wouldn't want to stick around. But controversial opinions do tend to make a stir—that's only to be expected—and I don't think the sheer volume of disagreement ruins the possibility of a constructive conversation as long as there are still people trying to address opposing views reasonably. And yet, in many threads like this, someone will drop a post they know will spark mass responses, and then they'll excuse themselves from the discussion before they've even tried to have enough of an exchange to qualify as an actual conversation. Then they'll use their premature exit as ammo for their claim that GAF is hostile to conservatives.
Now, this doesn't apply to all or maybe even most of the conservative posters on this site, but it's an issue I notice again and again in political threads.
An example would be discussions about small business owners who invoke religious freedom to deny service to gay customers. Often there are at least a couple of posters who take the side of the owners. And naturally enough, there tends to be a surge of posts challenging their views. Now, if every single one of these posts were personal insults, I could understand why someone wouldn't want to stick around. But controversial opinions do tend to make a stir—that's only to be expected—and I don't think the sheer volume of disagreement ruins the possibility of a constructive conversation as long as there are still people trying to address opposing views reasonably. And yet, in many threads like this, someone will drop a post they know will spark mass responses, and then they'll excuse themselves from the discussion before they've even tried to have enough of an exchange to qualify as an actual conversation. Then they'll use their premature exit as ammo for their claim that GAF is hostile to conservatives.
Now, this doesn't apply to all or maybe even most of the conservative posters on this site, but it's an issue I notice again and again in political threads.
Yeah, but then you get a Malthusian situation, albeit more to do with resources as a whole, where demand strips supply at an exponential rate.
There is a definite trend of them running away when faced with facts but the reasonable ones stay and try to engage so really it just ends up being a process of separating the wheat from the chaff.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...want-a-global-economic-boom-open-the-borders/
Double world GDP. It's go time.
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
That would be pretty awesome if it worked that way, and thanks for the link.
CaptainofIndustry
Member
I pretty much ignore all of them. I've realized over the years that being registered as a republican or democrat really doesn't define my political views. I'm very in the middle of both political parties and vote based on candidates and I will vote across party lines. But honestly, for a party that is supposed to be accepting of other's points of view, you won't find that here on GAF. On the flip side, my conservative friends on Facebook come off as some of the close-minded people I have ever met in my life.
Laieon
Member
To be fair, when 18/20 of the longest serving congressmen are democrats and we're probably going to have another Clinton as our nominee, I'm not sure that's something Democrats can criticize. We do the same thing. John Dingell (numero uno) was even succeeded by his wife. Seems like democrats also keep it in the family.
gutter_trash
Banned
there have been Conservative leaders in the past who were mindful and moderate enough to take nuanced positions on all sorts of issues.
But it seem that in the age of post-Cable news and social media that Conservative parties from many countries have jumped the shark
In Canada we used to have a Progressive Conservative party that was more mindful and moderate but today they dropped the P party from the Party when Western Reformists took over and unified all Right Wing Parties and just made it "Conservative" and pushed Canada's right further to the right.
This election we just had last week (7 days ago) was pretty telling on how exceptionally differnent this Conservative party under Stephen Haper is when compared to Brian Mulroney's or Joe Clark's Progressive Conservative party was back in the 1980s
But it seem that in the age of post-Cable news and social media that Conservative parties from many countries have jumped the shark
In Canada we used to have a Progressive Conservative party that was more mindful and moderate but today they dropped the P party from the Party when Western Reformists took over and unified all Right Wing Parties and just made it "Conservative" and pushed Canada's right further to the right.
This election we just had last week (7 days ago) was pretty telling on how exceptionally differnent this Conservative party under Stephen Haper is when compared to Brian Mulroney's or Joe Clark's Progressive Conservative party was back in the 1980s
Darren870
Member
I'm pretty center overall, but can go to the right often depending on the topic. I usually stay clear or will post a bit in topics that interest me. Usually once the left posters come in and "thats racist" comes I stop posting or even reading the thread.
Usually just goes down hill and certain topics aren't even worth discussing anymore.
I only follow a handful of posters in general anyways.
Usually just goes down hill and certain topics aren't even worth discussing anymore.
I only follow a handful of posters in general anyways.
The problem is that we only take notice of Republicans at the top level. y'know, most of which have terrible views (and Democrats are also guilty of this).
On the local level though, Republicans are much, much different. What they say and do actually does align with their constituents values. I know many that support local GOP but absolutely abhor GOP at the top level.
Unfortunately though neither side likes to actually have a discussion -- they want to be on the winning side, reason be damned. And most of GAF leans towards the left (I am one of them), and we tend to get super aggressive, and so most people that lean towards the right are either silenced, or ridiculed.
And so instead of it being a discussion, it just turns into a bunch of people giving each other pats in the back -- just as we accuse the right of doing when we're on their turf.
On the local level though, Republicans are much, much different. What they say and do actually does align with their constituents values. I know many that support local GOP but absolutely abhor GOP at the top level.
Unfortunately though neither side likes to actually have a discussion -- they want to be on the winning side, reason be damned. And most of GAF leans towards the left (I am one of them), and we tend to get super aggressive, and so most people that lean towards the right are either silenced, or ridiculed.
And so instead of it being a discussion, it just turns into a bunch of people giving each other pats in the back -- just as we accuse the right of doing when we're on their turf.
FriedConsole
Banned
Yeah usually political threads turn into a out progressive each other competition where the correct answer is some ridiculous extreme left view.
You are pro-choice for late term abortions? I believe you can abort a fetus at age 3. LOOK AT ME!!
Ray Wonder
Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
BTW, I'm super liberal. Just so you guys don't get the wrong idea about me. lol
Messofanego
Banned
You fell into a trap because now I can imply gay marriage is not important to you
Ok, I'm fine with this. But dems are much more closely aligned with the social policies of their constituents. Conservatives in this thread are making the case that their representatives don't represent them. They may be socially liberal and yet they keep electing non-socially-liberal candidates. Either that or the party isn't socially liberal and these posters need to accept the baggage that comes with their moniker.
Agent Gibbs
Member
I have tried and failed to discuss politics on here, there is a huge hatred of the opposing political sides on GAF, and the treatment of others is disgusting and frankly i find the lack of moderation on blanket statements about being a conservative meaning you hate gays etc reprehensible, its a bigoted intolerant viewpoint, but seems to unfortunately fit the politics on GAF (mainly liberal) so slides under the radar.
It's further complicated by the very word conservative and how it applies to view points and parties across the world - i'm in the UK, in the last election i voted conservative, instantly that means i hate the poor, gays, transsexuals and only want to see the rich go around hunting raping and pillaging, of so it seems with how some people on here react and get away with it
In this thread we've had blanket statements about conservative view points passed off as fact and assumptions made that if you hold a conservative view on one topic, you hold them on all
Honestly political parties are treated (immaturely) like sports teams on here, its all or none, there's no middle ground. I don't think anyone has any idea what a political spectrum is, or understands the concept of they can fall on a liberal view for one thing and a conservative for the other
Whilst i voted for the UK conservative party last election, i am in no way conservative, in every other election i've voted in (i'm 32 so its quite a few local and national) i have voted Labour - the liberal party of the UK (as it seems American's see it) when in reality they are left of centre (although seem to be lurching almost communist left).
In an election i vote for policies, i see which policies i like, tally them up and vote for the party I'm most attuned with at the time (there are websites that do it for me now), it was on that basis i ended up breaking the habit of a lifetime and voted Conservative - my 62 year old mother who had always voted Labour did the same, she was worried what her staunch labour parents would have though of it, but in the end the week party leader and lack of good policies in tune with the people made he vote for what she saw as the lesser of the evils.
I forget who, but someone mentioned in this thread they are politically aligned liberal but dare not post in immigration threads because they don't hold the typical open boarder liberal view, as they believe some control is needed
I too hold this view and have tried to mention it before and you get shot down and accused of being racist within a few posts, when all i'd like is a similar immigration policy to Canada or Australia (need to have qualifications, good reason to emigrate, money in the bank etc) hilariously ironic when they are considered liberal countries and examples of what to do compared to 'conservative views'
Currently i don't agree with the new labour policies on nuclear weapons, armed forces or immigration - I'd love to do away with both our Army and Nuclear weapons, but its childish to attempt to do so without a unilateral stance from every country, and even then it should be percentage based so the largest forces reduce first. It would be like the American police disarming tomorrow and taking a UK police stance of truncheons vs the criminals - it wouldn't work as long as there are those who oppose that view.
but the concept of not holding all one political parties beliefs/views and picking and choosing on a topic is a concept that seems to be lost here, unless you tow the party line of the stereotypical liberal view you are jumped on for being a KKK loving, nuclear war wanting conservative, i can only imagine they assume you are sat at your PC in clothing adorned with the american flag holding a gun in one hand a bible in the other.
It needs to stop, GAF is very intolerant and completely unwilling to discuss anything, its like people want a back patting echo chamber
It's further complicated by the very word conservative and how it applies to view points and parties across the world - i'm in the UK, in the last election i voted conservative, instantly that means i hate the poor, gays, transsexuals and only want to see the rich go around hunting raping and pillaging, of so it seems with how some people on here react and get away with it
In this thread we've had blanket statements about conservative view points passed off as fact and assumptions made that if you hold a conservative view on one topic, you hold them on all
Honestly political parties are treated (immaturely) like sports teams on here, its all or none, there's no middle ground. I don't think anyone has any idea what a political spectrum is, or understands the concept of they can fall on a liberal view for one thing and a conservative for the other
Whilst i voted for the UK conservative party last election, i am in no way conservative, in every other election i've voted in (i'm 32 so its quite a few local and national) i have voted Labour - the liberal party of the UK (as it seems American's see it) when in reality they are left of centre (although seem to be lurching almost communist left).
In an election i vote for policies, i see which policies i like, tally them up and vote for the party I'm most attuned with at the time (there are websites that do it for me now), it was on that basis i ended up breaking the habit of a lifetime and voted Conservative - my 62 year old mother who had always voted Labour did the same, she was worried what her staunch labour parents would have though of it, but in the end the week party leader and lack of good policies in tune with the people made he vote for what she saw as the lesser of the evils.
I forget who, but someone mentioned in this thread they are politically aligned liberal but dare not post in immigration threads because they don't hold the typical open boarder liberal view, as they believe some control is needed
I too hold this view and have tried to mention it before and you get shot down and accused of being racist within a few posts, when all i'd like is a similar immigration policy to Canada or Australia (need to have qualifications, good reason to emigrate, money in the bank etc) hilariously ironic when they are considered liberal countries and examples of what to do compared to 'conservative views'
Currently i don't agree with the new labour policies on nuclear weapons, armed forces or immigration - I'd love to do away with both our Army and Nuclear weapons, but its childish to attempt to do so without a unilateral stance from every country, and even then it should be percentage based so the largest forces reduce first. It would be like the American police disarming tomorrow and taking a UK police stance of truncheons vs the criminals - it wouldn't work as long as there are those who oppose that view.
but the concept of not holding all one political parties beliefs/views and picking and choosing on a topic is a concept that seems to be lost here, unless you tow the party line of the stereotypical liberal view you are jumped on for being a KKK loving, nuclear war wanting conservative, i can only imagine they assume you are sat at your PC in clothing adorned with the american flag holding a gun in one hand a bible in the other.
It needs to stop, GAF is very intolerant and completely unwilling to discuss anything, its like people want a back patting echo chamber
Roughly 90% of the time. Same with threads on evolution after being told in no uncertain terms that accepting evolution and believing in a creator were impossible and that I was actually a science denier. It's just not worth the effort.
It's not worth arguing from the conservative side on gaf since you get a trove of dismissive remarks, laughing gifs, downright hostility, and baseless accusations of being a racist or bigot.
A lot of users will say how intolerant conservatives and Republicans are, but some liberals here are extremely intolerant of conservatives as if they're some KKK and Nazi hybrid group.
Edit: I hadn't even this entire thread and someone has already drawn parallels between the KKK and neo Nazis. That is exactly why I avoid political topics.
A lot of users will say how intolerant conservatives and Republicans are, but some liberals here are extremely intolerant of conservatives as if they're some KKK and Nazi hybrid group.
Edit: I hadn't even this entire thread and someone has already drawn parallels between the KKK and neo Nazis. That is exactly why I avoid political topics.
AbsolutBro
Member
Uh, no its not. Not even a little bit. Most of the middle of the country is farmland (hence: America's bread basket) and the coasts are pretty full of cities and people. Perhaps you're thinking of Canada where the bulk of the country is unpopulated tundra?
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I hate to think of it this way because I want to engage with someone who thinks conservative. I know some people are like, get outside and meet people in real life to gain perspective, but politics can get personal, and too often, I find the people who are right are very right. So it's hard to have those conversations.
I would hope I could get that honest conversation from GAF since i feel it is a better political talking place compared to other site where more than often or majority of them are strictly conservative boards that just spew unfiltered hate and theres no discussion to be had there.
It sucks that most conservatives here are afraid or even have to ignore threads like that when differ opinions are what we sometimes even sign on for. I do get annoyed by the dogpiling sometimes and I also do get annoyed by the name calling, but I'm always just waiting for someone to explain why and what they stand for. Why they vote this way? Why they feel this is more important to them etc etc? It's not fair to label all conservatives as disgusting republican, but it's also not fair to label all liberals as people who don't want to listen.
Some of us want to listen, we just don't hear anything ..so how can one listen? I would hope some of you guys are willing to discuss and I'm sorry that the environment has been so bad lately.
AbsolutBro
Member
Sort of like how many far right talking heads always call for "regular" Muslims to denounce the extremists? You don't see how lumping everyone in with the loudest is ridiculous?
http://tumblr.mapsbynik.com/post/82791188950/nobody-lives-here-the-nearly-5-million-census
47% uninhabited.
A lot of the dark areas looks like the setting of Napolean Dynamite..
Perfect Blue
Banned
Playing The Victim: The Thread
disastermouse
Banned
Malthus has been pretty thoroughly refuted, IMHO.
- Status