News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
there's another thread about outsiders' criticisms of lemmy, and one of the comments mentioned that it's "unwelcoming to right wing viewpoints"
I WONDER FUCKING WHY
let's keep it that way, the right-wing should be unwelcome everywhere
1000%. So long as right-wing equates to racist, seditious, traitorous bastards, then yeah...you're not welcome here or anywhere else in this country. Go find Jesus or something.
yeah, definitions are hard, but in general I tend to think of the right as promoting traditional hierarchy and the left as being egalitarian.
Any amount of right wing will never sit well with me after trump. Things could flip and the conservatives could somehow be fighting for workers rights and I'd still side with the party that supports women's right to chose etc.
If lemmy became a right wing cess pool I'd be done with it in a heart beat. There are a lot of shit ideas on this platform and I do wish I could find my tribe but as much as I know of them, they are my people.
What country?
Most right wingers think their views are legitimate because the right wing exists as the direct opposition to the left. But i think that view is warped.
We need to start considering right wingers as extremists and not the opposition. They should be outliers on a spectrum where the left is much more central and the right is much more to the extreme right
|----------------------------------------left wing----‐-----center----------------------------------------right wing--------|
Like that
They think their views are as right as ours are left. If they were, they would likely be welcome here.
I don't really see what is wrong with authentically egalitarian politics, so I'm inclined to think the "center" is just a euphemism for right-wing.
If a left wing movement fails in its egalitarianism, like when the USSR had slave camps, then I think we should not think of that movement as left wing at all, it just fails the definition of being left wing.
The common response to this is that it is a form of no true scotsman fallacy, which I think could be a legitimate concern since you might define a left wing ideal as the definition and anything failing to live up to the perfection of that ideal is not "left". But on the other hand, I don't know how else to consider some politics authentically egalitarian and worth supporting and others inauthentic or corrupt and embodying hierarchical or right-wing tendencies. Maybe there is no bright line we can draw or reduce to a logical equation, but I would like to think there is still some value in evaluating which politics to support (i.e. which politics are furthering egalitarian means or ends).
Or, hear me out, discard the left-right metaphor for the nonsense that it is and refer to ideologies by their names. There is no left, there are communists/socialists and anarchists. There is no center, there are liberals and conservatives. There is no right, there are fascists and "libertarians."
The left-right metaphor is a set of training wheels, and by continuing to use them you sabotage your own political understanding.
I think it's important to clarify what is left or right because that's how people talk and think - a lot of political language is warped or difficult to clarify. When I explain what liberals are to people in the U.S. they simply refuse to believe me. They think "liberal" can only mean "the left" and this has a whole set of assumptions built into it. When I ask them about the Liberal party in Australia they legitimately don't understand it, and it seems like people are extremely stubborn around political topics and unwilling to believe you when you say something so against their understanding.
I think whether a "communist" or "socialist" is left-wing depends on a few things, I don't consider Marxist-Leninism a left-wing movement or ideology for example.
I also tend to be skeptical that ideology is relevant to political movements, and that most of the time politics is reduced to the struggle of different constituents who pragmatically use ideology to manipulate people into supporting that constituency. Much like racism was leveraged to get the agrarian, southern whites in the U.S. to vote for the interests of wealthy landowners in that region, I think ideological promises or affiliations are often used to whip up support and then dropped once elected in favor of whatever is needed to get things done.
Sometimes I think ideology applies, it's hard to understand the particular flavor of George W. Bush's imperialism without understanding the Christian motivation to wage a religious war, but even that is ultimately more about civilizational struggle" than it is about any particular religious or theological belief.
Anyway, I just mean to say that most political language sabotages political understanding, and that maybe understanding is a tricky endeavor.
I think most conservatives are just unintelligent so they're ripe for fox news to tell them what to think. Yes, there was a study that showed conservatives are less intelligent than leftists
Reality has a left-wing bias
Ok I'm a lefty but I've always hated this statement. It is the launching point of a great deal of ignorance and idiocy, kind of like some religious dogma.
I think it's more shorthand for the fact people generally do want to take care of each other and make sure everyone has the opportunity for a happy life.
Though I suppose it is a little cheeky to say that means people are left leaning.
Plenty of church-going pro-lifers feel like they're doing the best for their communities and people in general. It's why when we make arguments we need to not talk down to people like they're idiots, because they generally are not.
If I was on the receiving end of a line that far up it's own ass I'd stop listening immediately.
I said it a bit in jest, though as explained, I think it's still somewhat a true statement. I wouldn't actually say this to people who don't identify as left-leaning, because as you point out, it would be counter-productive.
But... It's observable fact...
A typical position held by people who call themselves "left" is a desire to completely ban gun ownership on the grounds that gun ownership leads to gun violence.
Gun violence was much lower when you could buy actual machine guns right off the shelf, and mass shootings were virtually unheard of. What happened since then, and how would banning guns fix it?
This is just one of many blind spots that make the statement unrealistic.
Except if you go far enough left, you get your guns back...
I mean I'm down as long as we're not talking going full tankie
I wish the world was unwelcoming to right-wing viewpoints. This is the result and so many people are fine with it. It’s so depressing.
Unfortunately you'll have to get used to it and continue challenging them. The polycrisis is only going to get worse and the number of refugees from the impact of climate change and climate change related causes i.e. conflict from collapsing food / water access and / or failed states.
In the next 10 to 20 years life quality will peak and then will start collapsing over the next 50.
When that happens a significant cohort of the population will close ranks and want to "protect" those closest around them, the desire the ultra-rich have for isolation will continue to trickle down into the rich and remnants of the upper middle class as the wealth gap widens. In times of crisis this cohort pushes further and further right.
So keep working against these forces so we can get the rich to pay their fair share to fix these problems but be prepared to take up arms when the house of cards that is the relative stability we have now collapses.
Probably the most common right-wing taking point these days. This is the level of discourse the GOP has to offer at this point
Their trollish response to me suggests they're not the most educated of people.
They rarely are. Hate is stupid and easy. You don't need to think in order to hate, you just see someone and decide they're bad for whatever reason you like. Heck, if you can't find a reason let Fox and Friends™ find one for ya 😀
As Trump once said, "I love the poorly-educated."
Yes. That’s the sort of thing.
I like it when block-worthy people announce their block-worthyness.
But how will you see their well-reasoned rebuttals now?
Oh no, I haven't thought about that! I bet they're capable of... dunno, Shakespearean art!
"I added nothing useful to the conversation and got nothing useful out of it. Fuckin' leftists."
🤣
Hey, mod here. I've removed 2 of your comments, because they were trolling. Please read the rules. The next time this happens, we will be giving you a temporary ban.
Any space thats welcoming for me (a trans person) is unwelcoming to right wing viewpoints.
> Talks against healthcare
> Wonders why nobody likes those speeches
Paradox of tolerance. They aren’t welcome because they tend not to play nice with others.
I feel genuinely bad for the non-facist conservatives, but today they’d be called leftist too, so I think it’s still fair to say it really shouldn’t be welcome anywhere because the term has become very extreme.
"non-fascist conservatives" have spent the last 40 years obstructing and cozying up to fascists rather than play well with others. They knew what they were doing.
Or, to be as charitable as possible, they're useful idiots who are lazily unaware of how heinous the people they're blindly following are.
They're not exactly unaware, but only care for how it affects them. Anything heinous that happens to someone else is seen as completely irrelevant.
This is how it works though, right? They keep ostracizing groups until they run out of out-groups to attack and the next round begins. The old inner circle is now the circle and a new inner circle is proclaimed, the new outgroup(s) are revealed, and the feeding frenzy continues.
This is what always baffles me about minorities that are staunchly Republican. They're actually voting for themselves to be put on the chopping block (just not right away)
This is exactly why fascism is ultimately self-defeating. The only question is how many people get hurt in the meantime.
Right-wingers don't have viewpoints. Fascism is not a legitimate political position. It is a threat. We don't call a serial killer's propensity to kill a "viewpoint". Conservatives have motives, not viewpoints.
They can stay on X.