No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I'm going to make a second comment, from the point of observation bias:
OP obviously knows people who have been attacked by vicious, hateful people on the right. But OP is probably hanging around neither the people on the right being attacked by vicious, hateful people on the left, nor around the vicious, hateful minority of the left who are attacking people on the right.
So she hasn't seen it. But I have. I've been attacked from the right for my progressive views and from the left for my conservative views, and from both by people who assume that if I think A I must also think B and C, no matter how benign A is and horrific C is.
What conservative views do you hold?
That most changes are bad and this people who advocate for change are to be viewed with skepticism
That there is inherent value to human labor
That the family is the primary unit of society
That heirarchies are natural to humanity and can be beneficial OR destructive
That freedom of religion (including the freedom to disdain religion) is the most important human right
That human rights are real things on their own, an essential part of the human condition, and cannot be granted or removed by governments, only respected or infringed
That any discussion of policy must include a discussion of what will cost, the likely secondary effects, and how likely it is to actually address the problem it seems to address
That government spending should not exceed government revenue over a ten-year period
That the Constitution is a carefully constructed document that has seen the US become the longest-lasting liberal democracy in history, and should be defended as such
That Enlightenment liberalism is the best form of society thus far, and while it can be refined it ought not to be replaced
What do you mean about the family unit? It's used as a dog whistle for straight couples most times.
I actually protested for marriage equality here in Illinois; my wife and I refused to file our marriage license until the law was updated and asked our wedding guests to forgo gifts and instead donate to Lambda Legal and other organizations also working for marriage equality.
So when I say "families", I do mean queer couples as well. But also intergenerational households. The focus on individualism and geographical mobility has been destructive to intergenerational wealth and wisdom, to familial connections, and to mental health. It's one of my big gripes with the way capitalism operates in the US, honestly; the balance of power lies far too heavily with employers rather than the workers and this often means that family life suffers for the sake of economic advantage.
But yeah, I'm also talking about children. I don't think anyone who doesn't want kids should be pressured to have them, but for those who do want kids, that's something we as a society should encourage. To that end I favor pronatalist policies as well as policies that seek to make adoption easier and less expensive, especially domestic adoption.
And while I know sometimes pronatalism is used as a fig leaf for anti-immigration sentiment, that's not the case here; I'm very pro-immigration for a variety of reasons but it's no secret that immigrants tend to have larger families and are more likely to have international households.
Hear hear! The government should completely get out of marriage and leave it to religion, or completely go in on encouraging marriage (actually domestic partnerships) between whoever if we think it's going to be good for communities. Before Obergefell I would've said marriage is old, let religions have it. Encouraging people to take part in their community, have close ties with benefits like hospital visitation, tax breaks, etc should all be domestic partnership based, and we should've made everyone get domestic partnered - marriage should have conferred no civic benefits. As is, we have a weird hybrid religious and civic thing called marriage but at least everyone has access now.
But yeah as far as encouraging families we should do the same incentive wise with having kids and immigration to help with our birth rate problems, and continue trying to make home ownership more affordable (and more varied - looking at you missing middle housing) and encouraging it to again, incentivize investing in local communities. Civic policy like this stuff gets jumbled and we should be more clear about what we want to incentivize and why.
are you american?
yes
There are a few there I would argue arent specific to conservativism like labor having value and freedom of religion, but yeah I could see those on the left having an issue with too much concern over spending as the government isn't the same as your personal bank account that needs to be balanced.
Damn, typos, but this is not the kind of comment you want marked as "edited". My apologies.
I am shocked I had to scroll this far to find someone saying this stuff exists. Literally look around on Lemmy, check the comment section of the Washington Post, like half of TikTok, a huge portion of twitter, etc. All of it full of angry radical liberals, actual communists, people crying for guillotines, deriding uneducated hicks and rednecks. Mocking all christians instead of just the fundamentalists, constantly deriding white men for existing, even just dumb infantile names (e.g. Repug-licans). Literally last night at my local college, some portion of protestors started calling for lynching college administrators. Now I'm not saying pro-palestinian protests are full of those people, just like the average liberal would be pretty ok with universal healthcare but miiiight not favor seizing the means of production or banning landlords. But even though these people are a minority, they're just like the crazy right wingers - they are loud, and paint with the same wide brush that hardcore conservatives do, just using a different color.
And I want to be clear, this isn't some enlightened centrism bullshit where I'm saying "both sides suck." I am actually very, very left wing (though on Lemmy sometimes it seems like that makes me a moderate because I'm not calling for guillotining the rich, but I digress), and I probably agree with 90% of the angry people's actual policy views. But at least anger and vitriol wise, and even a tiny portion of radical policy-wise, the fringe of "both sides" do kind of suck. Not everyone who is angry fits that profile (certainly I get angry thinking about climate change, but I'm not out there telling everyone who drives a truck they're evil). But many people like that absolutely exist, and OP not seeing them likely is a result of our fractured echo chamber world, certainly not because they aren't there and angry.