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
Why make it a right vs left thing at all. Can't we just discuss things going on as they are without pigeonholing certain opinions as "right" and "left?"
I don't think x y z thing is true because I'm "on the left." I think it's true because it's my best understanding of reality, and that understanding of reality is generally described as "left." If you falsify my arguments, point flaws in my understanding, or present me with a set of premises that corroborates reality better, I'll align myself with that in a heartbeat. When you see something you disagree with, don't just think "oh that's leftism I don't agree with that," instead, try to figure out what you think the flaw is with it, and then offer that up in good faith. Worst case scenario, someone learns something.
You have a point there. I agree with a lot of views from the left even though I'm on the right.
First off, thank you :)
Second off, I am having a hard time understanding what the statement "I agree with a lot of views from the left even though I’m on the right" means. What do you consider "views from the left" that you agree with, and what does it mean to you to say you're "on the right?"
I know people here will try to debate me on every issue here and I know I won't have time for that. Go ahead and ask whatever questions you want, but I can't promise I'll answer everything. .
I don't have a perfect knowledge of exactly what's on the left and right so please forgive me if I put something in the wrong category.
I understand that left vs right ideally shouldn't exist. The same goes for political parties. They do exist so here's some of my views from both sides.
Right. I don't agree with critical race theory. Skin color should be treated like hair color or eye color. It's just a way to describe someone.
Government should strictly obey the constitution.
Billionaires should exist if they do businesses ethically.
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the fetus.
I find myself agreeing more with conservatives when voting.
The electoral college is a good thing because it lets small towns have a voice.
Left. Walkable cities are a more efficient use of space.
Climate change is real and humans are continuing. It's not going to destroy the world in 5 years like some people are saying. It's mostly going to affect poor costal countries and islands many years in the future.
Corporations should be held accountable for their actions.
Puerto Rico and other US territories should be a states or their own country.
People involved in abortions should consider the life of the mother.
Ultimately if people want to debate you, you're not obligated to indulge them. It's good for discourse to put out your opinion in the way that you have (eg respectfully and without throwing barbs at everyone).
That said, some of your points are hard for me to follow.
If you can't articulate the difference, how is it that you came to identify as one? IMO "left vs right" is an intentionally vague and poorly defined concept to keep people angry and identifying with a brand, more than a coherent description of ideology.
I hear so much about this. What does it mean? Can you give a real world example where someone is trying to implement what you oppose?
I don't remember off the top of my head exactly what CRT is, but I remember this video was a really good explanation.
Edit: I also can't tell you exactly where it's being taught in the real world. It's not a topic I've done thorough research in.
CRT is something that is widely mischarcterized, especially in politics. It is principally an academic topic in sociology and law.
In the simplest form, it looks at how historical treatment of groups based upon their race/ethnic background can have an impact on their descendents and how that can also impact society.
For example, due to enslavement of their ancestors, a larger proportion of African Americans are impoverished than those of European descent. This has further impacts on how they are perceived in society and vice-versa.
That's literally the sort of thing that it is. Not assigning value to skin color but looking at how society historically has and its impacts.
The reason I asked was because I think there's a fundamental misalignment between what it actually is, driving people to argue past each other.
Your earlier post suggests that your stance on abortion is different than that of the mainstream conservative narrative. This seems normal, based on how every vote on that issue seems to be playing out, there is a disconnect between the ideology that conservative leaders are pushing and what their supporters actually think. The exact same situation is true with affirmation action on the left - voters consistently reject it regardless of party affiliation or self identified political leaning.
I've heard people identify CRT as being closely related to affirmative action, in that it's an actual policy that gives out some advantage (or seeks to remove some other existing advantage, if you have a different perspective) vs being some purely academic case study more like what a other response to your response described.
Where I'm going with this is that depending on what you're describing when you say CRT, it's very easily possible that your position of opposing it is consistent with a clear majority of people who identify as "left". The disagreement isn't about ideology, but about semantics that is being exploited by a political class to drive support for a party.
You seem like a reasonable guy, so I'll try to explain why I heavily disagree with some of these.
I get the whole "they earned their money fairly" argument, but I can never justify morally the act of having more money than you, your children and grandchildren can ever know how to spend. Try to visualize a bit how much a billion is, it's a disgusting amount of money for a single person when you can spend them to help others in a meaningful way, like investing in healthcare to make it accessible for example.
Think of the common situations where people use abortion. It's usually young people who are not in a position to raise a child, people who are a bad couple or not even a couple to begin with, that aren't suitable to raise a child together, poor people that can't afford to raise a child properly, and cases where the fetus has a life altering problem.
In all of these cases, you are prioritizing a fetus over the whole life of a person who will grow up much much worse than an average child.
Isn't this a conflicting view with the other one? Which one should you prioritize if the mother is too young to bear a child, the mother who is a grown person with memories, hopes and dreams, a personality, a family etc., or the fetus which doesn't really perceive anything that's going on at the moment?
Have you not seen what's going on all around the world? Fires everywhere, whirlwinds, floods, all more common than they have ever been. And are you willing to bet that it's not going to become even worse as it goes on? Because I'm willing to bet that if we don't fix it very very soon, then climate migrations, wars and famine might even be close enough for us or our children to experience.
Is there a history of descriminating and enslaving people based on their hair or eye color? You don't think that that history has any effect on society?
Like what? Because you're likely just agreeing with what they say, because they're lying, and you're believing them. Not because of any inherent truth to what they say. It's one thing to agree with someone on something they say. But do you agree with what they DO? Give an example of a price of legislation that the Republicans have pushed that the Democrats opposed that you agree with
And why do you think the Democrats don't think the government should follow the Constitution. Which party is enacting laws explicitly bypassing constituonal rights by allowing citizens to sue privately, rather than enforcing it themselves, explicitly to get around constitutional issues. Which party is banning books, firing teachers for protected speech, etc
All of your right leaning opinions listed are not opinions at all - they are Republican talking points, written and promoted by Republicans whose life experience (abortion for example) often flies in the face of these statements.
How you think they fit with the rest of your statements is beyond me. Do you just drool and nod at Fox News?
With all due respect, you're very condescending and snobby. You act like you know his beliefs better than he does, that superiority complex looks ugly on you.
You think insulting people for having certain views is going to be helpful in this dialogue? You think mocking someone who's having a conversation with you in good faith is productive?
Grow up, quit being so smug and childish.
I don't watch fox news.
Yet you somehow know all of their talking points and made up fantasy situations. So if you're not getting your news from fox, whoever you are getting it from is getting it from fox, like Facebook.
You've made that pretty clear by going off on "critical race theory". Tell us how you know about that, and where you got your definition for it from?
I can't speak for the the person you replied to but I get my information from a variety of sources. One is the Economist magazine, (hardly a right wing tabloid). In a recent op-ed John McWhorter, who is a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, and the author of more than a dozen books, and who also happens to be black, Mr McWhorter laments that CRT has "painted black Americans as hypersensitive children, immune to reason and indifferent to nuance". He goes on to say that "Whites insist this is progress in order to feel unracist. Black people (although hardly in the lockstep many suppose) insist this is progress because it lends them a useful “noble victim” status. The result is a chronic, pervasive mendacity, dehumanising black people as thoroughly as outright bigotry did, despite being presented as respect and even worship.".
You may disagree with Mr McWhorter. I certainly do. But for you to so casually dismiss another person as an gnorant, fox news dummy simply because they have different views tells us more about you than about them.
So that just tells us that McWhorter doesn't know what CRT is either apparently
I'm pretty sure that he does know what it is. As I said I don't agree with many of his arguments, but they are nonetheless cogent and reasoned arguments.
He claims for example that CRT proponents are mostly white liberal elites who just want to demonstrate their anti-racist credentials. He also makes the point that CRT ultimately harms blacks and people of color by implicitly lowering standards for those groups. The "soft racism of low expectations". These are valid criticisms.
Instead of dismissing him as ignorant, (as so many of us liberals often do), it's better to engage and try to refute what he claims.
Project harderv.
Hey I understand the frustration, but the person you're replying too seems to me to be offering up their understanding of things in good faith, and if your goal is to maje the world better—good faith discussion is going to go a lot further in that.
Although if your goal is just to feel good dunking on that person, then I suppose this comment serves that goal, but I want to believe you do actually care about trying to make things better.