this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
214 points (89.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26903 readers
2205 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ChefTyler1980@lemmy.world 165 points 11 months ago (11 children)

I can only speak for my friends who fit your criteria: they’re single issue voters (like many Americans) and they’re afraid the Dems are coming for their guns.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 96 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The dilemma being that anyone who acts this way probably shouldn't own guns.

Placing gun ownership over all other personal freedoms is an unhealthy obsession.

People who think they need weapons in case are not so different than those who think the rapture will occur in their lifetime.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (9 children)

They are unfortunately correct. I can’t count how many failed attempts I’ve made to try to convince many of my liberal peers that trying to kill the 2nd Amendment or functionally prevent people from buying guns is doing more harm to our collective efforts than good by alienating independents who are otherwise liberal-leaning, but staunchly support 2A. Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem. Conservatives aren’t much better, unfortunately, and they’re three times as stubborn, so here we are.

[–] redballooon@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago (12 children)

Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem.

Could you elaborate that a bit?

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Fades@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

single issue voters are fucking willfully braindead. Selfish short-sighted fuckers doing the opposite of their civic duty

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] NataliePortland@lemmy.ca 97 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Some users have come to this thread to answer this question honesty and openly. Without cussing or name calling or anything.

I think it’s shameful for people to be downvoting them. Downvote something for being off topic, or for being violent or hateful that’s fine. But for having an opinion that’s different from yours in a thread specifically asking for that?

There are always going to be people who you disagree with. On every topic.That kind of behavior will only push people away.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I agree.

I asked this question because I really want to try to understand people who are different than me and hold other opinions than me. Broaden my horizon. Maybe help people question their own reasonings.

So, I asked a question on a topic I don't understand. I hope people will answer honestly and that people who disagree will avoid persecuting that honesty.

We all need to find common ground somewhere.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 49 points 11 months ago (19 children)

They happen to align with my values. I was raised Christian, and I only became agnostic in college, so that probably plays into it.

For example, abortion, I think murder is abohherent, baby murder especially so. I don't know when the right to life begins, so I err on the side of caution, at the earliest point, at conception.

Im not anti-lgbtq.

I dont hold contempt for atheism, I dont like /r/atheism

Christian nationalism is weird one because no one seems to know what that actually means. And hell, freedom of religion is one of the most important rights, right next to free speech.

I hope that helps.

[–] enki@lemm.ee 52 points 11 months ago (30 children)

Banning abortion doesn't stop abortion, it just shifts it to a black market where women are far more likely to die.

What does demonstrably reduce abortion to effectively insignificant levels is better sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

Prohibition has never worked. Education always has.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] Alto@kbin.social 37 points 11 months ago (20 children)

Honest question. How do you reconcile your claim about not being anti-lgbt when the GOP is very vocally and openly pushing anti-lgbt messaging and legislation.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You know that someone can agree with most things in a platform and hate other things about it right?

The fact that they said they’re not anti-lgbt instead of saying they’re pro-lgbt implies that lgbt issues in general are lower on their list of priorities. They may not agree with the anti lgbt stuff but it isn’t important to them anyway.

[–] Alto@kbin.social 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (10 children)

I'm aware of that first part, but I'm not quite sure how it's possible to make a moral argument that basic human rights shouldn't be towards the very top of your list. The unfortunate reality of the matter is that even in the off chance your local R isn't completely awful, the policies that will be implemented on a national level if they manage to take control of the presidency again are. Voting for an R is a tacit endorsement of those policies.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] Fal@yiffit.net 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

think murder is abohherent, baby murder especially so. I don't know when the right to life begins, so I err on the side of caution

Why stop there? You have no idea, right? So why do you masturbate or use condoms? You're killing millions of potential babies!

If you don't know, you should err on the side of caution for the rights of the people who you do know are real.

Or maybe you should just stay out of it, because as you say, you don't know. Leave it to the scientists and doctors who DO know and who almost universally support abortion access.

[–] FrenLivesMatter@lemmy.today 12 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Why stop there? You have no idea, right? So why do you masturbate or use condoms? You're killing millions of potential babies!

Not the guy you're responding to, but you have a point. Coincidentally, most religions are also against both, so at least you can't accuse them of being inconsistent on the issue of reproduction.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 20 points 11 months ago

Thank you for your response.

[–] Skavau@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago

Unfortunately, many Republican elected representatives are, to varying degrees, anti-LGBT and do support Christian encroachment into non-religious people's lives.

[–] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

I'm on team "glad you responded" but I still wanna respond to 2 things you said.

First, a lot of anti-abortion people want the abortion conversation to end at "this is murder", but how do you address the bodily autonomy argument? Even if I accept any and all abortions as the full death of a complete person, why are women compelled to donate their bodies to save another person? I don't support forced organ donations to save lives, and by that logic I also do not support forced pregnancies. Any opinion on that perspective?

Christian nationalism isn't complicated in what it is, it is just the desire/push/beliefs from the people that want a nation with an explicitly christian government, a christian theocracy. If it completely took over everything, freedom of religion would be dead, everything would be christian. To try and rephrase it bluntly, Christian nationalism is the desire for and work towards a Christian nation. Some people take it seriously, some people don't, some people outright support it, others deny it even is a real concept.

Edit to add: if you aren't anti-lgbtq, will you call your representatives that you vote for and emphatically tell them so? The difference in opinions between conservatives and their politicians about lgbtq is something I hear from most conservatives I've talked to, but it makes me sad to see they don't really care beyond saying "I'm not anti-lgbtq". If you vote for an anti-lgbtq politician because of other policies they support, please at least tell them you don't agree with their anti-lgbtq stance. It is literally the least amount of help I can think of to ask for.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Tranus@programming.dev 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I used to consider myself republican, and I think I'm still closer to republican than democrat. I prefer small government, which is at least sometimes a republican ideal. I am also against identity politics of any kind, so I am against affirmative action. I am in favor of gun rights, with regulations that allow for appropriate tracking of who has guns where, how they are stored, how they are transported etc. However, regulations that prevent particular people from owning guns or ban any particular weapons should be very conservative. Even felons should regain gun rights after an appropriate period of time. Only ridiculously dangerous weapons, like nukes, should be outright banned. Stuff like full auto weapons should be legal, but restricted to only be stored at a gun range or something. As far as LGBT goes, I don't think the government should have anything to do with them. Let them do what they want, let people react how they want (as long as it isn't violent of course, which is already illegal under other laws). I've never been really sure about abortion. My gut reaction is to just let people do what they want, but I struggle to logically justify it as anything but murder. Not to mention the impracticality of banning it.

I wouldn't really call myself a republican anymore though. This is largely because of the religious aspects. I don't know if republicans have actually become more authoritarian or if my perception has just changed, but either way they don't seem to prioritize the same things as me anymore. Things like right to repair, net neutrality, and E2EE are important to me, but they don't align with that at all. The party also keeps embracing identity politics, just with different identities than their opposition. Religion should be a non-factor from a governmental perspective. It doesn't need any special protections, just to be ignored.

If I had to call myself something, I guess I would be a 'libertarian socialist', however much of an oxymoron that seems to be. For instance, I like the idea of UBI, largely because it would allow almost all welfare/social programs to be eliminated (including social security). Doing so would reduce government control, because they no longer have an ability to tweak who gets what, since everyone gets the same amount.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›