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.
Partially unrelated, but I still of the opinion that "liberal" posts should be allowed beyond just the comments. Otherwise news of things like Isreal's refugee camp airstrike killing civilians have no chance to be brought up except through whataboutisms.
When you post lefty stuff, it buries the right wing stuff. Lemmy is about 99% left wing, half of them straight up communist. They upvote lefty stuff and downvote right wing stuff, regardless of quality or facts or anything. Votes are used an agree/disagree button.
This sub is sort of a foothold for right wingers. It allows for diversity of thought on an site scale.
I'm pretty sure I've gone over this.
When you post lefty stuff, it buries the right wing stuff.
It's almost like conservatism isn't able to compete in a true free market of ideas.
They upvote lefty stuff and downvote right wing stuff, regardless of quality or facts or anything.
Dude you've been posting shit like breitbart here. You don't actually care about quality or facts.
It allows for diversity of thought
Banning posts that are critical of conservatism is not "diversity of thought".
tbh it makes sense that the right wingers’ channel may need a tag to discern satire from reality.
Dude you’ve been posting shit like breitbart here. You don’t actually care about quality or facts.
Even when I post stuff directly from amnesty international, it gets downvoted. https://lemm.ee/post/12963343?scrollToComments=true
Downvotes are not about source. It's about agree/disagree.
Also you can't read minds.
Banning posts that are critical of conservatism is not “diversity of thought”.
Which is why I added "on a site scale" which you conveniently didn't copy over. This sub doesn't exist in a vacuum, there's plenty of places for lefty content, and you can subscribe to both. Like the .world sub.
Its a bit like saying a cat sub should also have dog posts. Theres a place for dogs, and theres a place for cats. You don't need to muddy the waters.
Even when I post stuff directly from amnesty international, it gets downvoted.
Because this is c/conservative, and like I said, conservatism is incapable of competing in a true, free market of ideas.
Also you can’t read minds.
No, but I guarantee you that I read way more liberal comments than you do.
This sub doesn’t exist in a vacuum
For some people it will be.
Its a bit like saying a cat sub should also have dog posts.
No it's not, because dog/cat topics don't influence votes, which have immense, real world consequences.
Im not going to bother with the rest, its not worth the effort, but
which have immense, real world consequences.
This sub has 44 subscribers and 68 users/month. Thats not immense by any stretch of the imagination.
Reddit's r/conservative started out at a similarly low sub count.
In any case, its not immense now, and I think its good for lemmy. Has /r/conservative lead to anything bad?
Has /r/conservative lead to anything bad?
It definitely contributed toward's Trump's presidency to say the least.
That wasn't a bad thing, aside from bumpstocks.
If you haven't already seen the Trump administration for what it was, nothing could ever convince you no matter how bad that administration's actions. You are blind to the truth.
The Onion once filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court informing the justices that satire does not need labels. Going so far as to argue that satire isn't satire if it's labelled as such.
This was after a police department arrested a guy for creating a fake Facebook page of that department and posted things that made it seem like the department was full of racist sex offenders. The police claimed that since it wasn't labelled as a joke page people could be confused. The Onion argues, that's the whole point of satire.
What was the outcome?
It was a request for the court to hear the case (a petition for certiorari). The court denied cert and didn't hear the case, therefore the lower court ruling stayed in place. From Wikipedia "The parody page, which strongly resembled the real page, had led to Novak's arrest in March 2016 and a subsequent trial for disrupting public services, which resulted in Novak's acquittal.[1] Novak then brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation and prior restraint. An initial decision of the Sixth Circuit in July 2019 allowed most of the suit to proceed, leading to a February 2021 ruling that Novak's arresting officers both had probable cause and were protected by qualified immunity, which the Sixth Circuit upheld in April 2022. "
Ah, so the state-backed harassment is working as designed.
Depends. Nowak had the charges against him dismissed. He then sued the police. He lost that case when it got to the Supreme Court and they denied cert.
Right, so they harassed him with impunity. The harassment is the point.
If you're wondering what the lower courts ruling was, it's on Wikipedia: Novak v. City of Parma. They ruled police had Qualified Immunity from violations of First and Fourth amendment rights because there wasn't evidence they did it in retaliation or bad faith. Also, wiki notes that The Babylon Bee also requested the Supreme Court hear the case, which I didn't know.
That would be stupid. We don't need rules for the handful of absolute braindeas slugs that are incapable of identifying the source as, what, like 1 or 2 extremely well known satire sites?
Satire really doesn't exist anymore. You might consider that satire today is reality in our country within a few months. If I told you that a legislative body told the public that by spending more money they would REDUCE inflation you would call that satire. It's nuts and everyone should know that it's nuts, if you understand basic math. Yet 99% of the media totally agreed with the concept and sold it to the few that still take them seriously.