Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
That'd just turn this place into a boring ass echo chamber.
Lately that has been a conservative thing, what with Jan 6 and all.
I find rehashing the same arguments over and over to be boring, especially when they come from very different worldviews.
I'd rather discuss finer points of conservativism without people yelling about us not caring about the poor or women or other such nonsense. Because we all know that it's nonsense.
This I agree with, even though the policies conservatives support invariably harm the people they purport to support.
And your problem is not asking "what is the basis of your argument?"
I mean, everybody seems to think that discussions are just a series of unsubstantiated assertions, but, imho, most discussions, especially with those with which you disagree, should mostly be clarifying questions and answers.
In other words, baseless attacks are only baseless because you don't know the base. That is a ripe circumstance for a discussion.
My first comment explicitly said to provide incentives for the kind of participation Throwaway wants. If that's not relevant or related, then idk what is.
I also defending "bad faith" arguments as at least contributing to the argument half of discussion/argument that Throwaway said he wanted.
My response to you suggested that users of the community should be able to identify when they don't understand something and simply ask about what they don't understand. That also facilitates the discussion/arguments about conservative content that Throwaway wants.
I feel like you didn't even read my comments, or you're just blinded by your perception that I argue in bad faith to bother understanding anything I say at all.
Prove me wrong.
Well, if you don't track a ball I toss at you, I suppose we're not playing catch.
Have you have heard of judo? Just because someone throws a punch at you doesn't mean you have to take it to money maker.
You routinely accuse me of "more insults, no discussion", but like...an insult doesn't preclude discussion unless you don't want to have a discussion in the first place. There's literally no reason you can't have a responded to my previous comments differently, asking me wtf I'm talking about.
Also, if saying you're not catchin' what I'm throwin' is an insult...oof!...talk about being weak and effiminate. <--That's an insult
Lot's of throwing metaphors! Catch something, dude. If you want to discuss, then discuss. If you don't want to discuss, then keep saying "more insults, no discussion". It's up to you.
There is a problem there. The "finer points of conservatism" includes things like defunding social programs. There is no way to destroy the social safety net and not get called out for hating the poor.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, not without an echo chamber.
This is what I'm talking about.
As if our current government programs are the only way to care for the poor.
Charity is not enough.
Agreed.
Government assistance is also not enough.
Then maybe we make rules based on the structure of arguments.